Gun Control & RKBA
Related: About this forumOooops! "Police: Customer with concealed carry license kills robber at corner store"
http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/local/breaking/ct-1-dead-in-shooting-at-gage-park-business-20151031-story.htmlI know it's anecdotal and anecdotal stories only matter on DU when they are about the criminal use of a firearm. Just glad Cook County Sheriff Tom Dart didn't try and stop this man's concealed carry permit applications like he has so many others.
"A robbery was thwarted at a Southwest Side corner store Saturday night when a patron with a concealed carry license shot and killed an armed robber, authorities said.
The dead man has been identified as Reginald Gildersleeve, 55, of the 5000 block of South California Avenue, according to the Cook County medical examiner's office. Gildersleeve was pronounced dead on the scene at 7:10 p.m., according to the medical examiner's office.
Citing preliminary information, police said a man walked into a store around 7 p.m. in the 2700 block of West 51st Street in the Gage Park neighborhood on the Southwest Side, announced a robbery to an employee working behind the counter and displayed a handgun.
Another employee came from the back of the store and the gunman pointed his weapon at her, police said. He then made her go to the back of the store, which also serves as a currency exchange.
After that, a customer who was also inside the business pulled out a gun and opened fire at the robber, killing him, police said. Police initially said the robber was possibly in his 40s.
Police said the shooter has a valid concealed carry license and a valid firearm owner's identification card."
Not in the article but in the police report, the unidentified concealed carrier is a Hispanic Male. But the Gage Park neighborhood is almost completely Hispanic, so that's not a surprise. You know, part of an ethnic group that doesn't want to carry guns according to "studies" that prove "gun culture" will fade.
Now somebody has to go break the sad new to Shannon Watts, who really believes this never happens.
SheilaT
(23,156 posts)makes up for all of the kiddies who are shot by the gun some asshole adult left available! Or the various mass shootings that are so common no one pays much attention to.
Yeah, so long as once or twice a year this happens, none of the other murders matter, do they?
You may assume the sarcasm thingy.
GGJohn
(9,951 posts)and nowhere does he say that or even imply that.
daleanime
(17,796 posts)And should be done at the drop of a hat?
We will never agree on this.
Eleanors38
(18,318 posts)The THUG came in armed, pointing a gun at people in order to rob. I don't believe he "dropped a hat."
I do not harbor special considerations or unseemly attractions to violent felons who would kill for a little bit of money.
We will never agree on this.
DonP
(6,185 posts)You didn't bother reading the story, did you. You just jumped to a conclusion that matched your prejudice.
The armed robber, 55 year old Reginald Denny, had a gun pointed at the store clerk and was forcing two of them into a back room before the licensed concealed carrier drew his weapon and shot.
Yeah, that's the "drop of a hat". He probably just wanted to talk over the hard life he was living with the women.
No, we won't agree, as long as you're too busy to even read the facts of the case.
petronius
(26,662 posts)Waldorf
(654 posts)Ed Suspicious
(8,879 posts)Response to Ed Suspicious (Reply #3)
Post removed
Eleanors38
(18,318 posts)msongs
(70,171 posts)Shows your ignorance on the law, it wasn't murder, which has a very specific meaning, it was a justifiable homicide.
Criminal empowerment is truly a disgusting phenomenon to witness.
sarisataka
(20,992 posts)he was only robbing people at gun point.
ileus
(15,396 posts)Can we call him a criminal since he didn't completely carry out the act? LOL
Lizzie Poppet
(10,164 posts)ProTip: look up "murder" in a dictionary.
Duckhunter935
(16,974 posts)He chose his path and paid the price.
Play stupid games, win stupid prizes.
packman
(16,296 posts)HassleCat
(6,409 posts)I cannot object to a citizen opening fire on a robber. I don't care if the robber was shot in the back, with no warning. We live in a violent nation, where the government kills people as punishment for killing other people. We send our quasi-mercenary armed forces halfway around the world to invade small, defenseless countries and kill hundreds of thousands of their people. We use drones to blow up entire neighborhoods in an effort to assassinate one "bad guy." Bad Guy With Gun vs. Good Guy With Gun is just a natural consequence of our violent nature. Attempting to regulate firearms will have zero effect in such a culture. To paraphrase the NRA: "Guns don't kill people. Violence kills people."
procon
(15,805 posts)Vigilantism is wrong. Does buying a gun and a concealed permit come with the option for extrajudicial murders or the right to stand as the sole arbiter of justice, the judge, jury and executioner? As much as the criminal act was wrong, a gun is no substitute for the judicial process, and no matter what sentence that robbery warranted, it would not have included the death penalty.
sarisataka
(20,992 posts)after being injured?
after being seriously injured?
never- let the judicial process handle it.
hack89
(39,179 posts)When you can prove that armed robbers never kill people will their potential victims consider not defending themselves.
gejohnston
(17,502 posts)especially when the robber, after getting the money, decides to herd people in the back room, that meets the definition of reasonable belief of or immediate threat of death or grave bodily harm. There is no guarantee that the robber wouldn't have murdered the clerks just for the fun of it. That actually happens. As much as it was an unfortunate necessity, are you saying that people shouldn't have the right to defend themselves from possible or certain death? Had he murdered them, the chance of the crime being solved is less than half.
discntnt_irny_srcsm
(18,577 posts)Vigilante: any person who takes the law into his or her own hands, as by avenging a crime.
The act of defending one's self or another from the serious harm is not vigilantism.
No, only the jury and executioner roles. Exigency during a crime where death or serious injury is clear and possibly imminent is valid justification for the use of lethal force.
Dr. Arthur Kellerman: "If youve got to resist, you're chances of being hurt are less the more lethal your weapon. If that were my wife, would I want her to have a .38 Special in her hand? Yeah."
From around 200 years ago:
John Adams: "Arms in the hands of citizens may be used at individual discretion in private self defense."
From around 900 years ago:
Thomas Aquinas: "Without doubt one is allowed to resist against the unjust aggressor to one's life, one's goods or one's physical integrity; sometimes, even 'til the aggressor's death In fact, this act is aimed at preserving one's life or one's goods and to make the aggressor powerless. Thus, it is a good act, which is the right of the victim."
From around 1600 years ago:
Augustine of Hippo: "Though defensive violence will always be 'a sad necessity' in the eyes of men of principle, it would be still more unfortunate if wrongdoers should dominate just men."
Lizzie Poppet
(10,164 posts)To allow unprovoked violence to succeed when one has the ability to stop it is a greater ethical offense than to commit violence in its prevention.
discntnt_irny_srcsm
(18,577 posts)wise fellow that Augustine
DonP
(6,185 posts)... at Lane Bryant in Tinley Park Illinois, 2008.
When confronted by an armed robber the 6 women obeyed and allowed themselves to be led into the backroom and tied up on the floor. After being assured that all he wanted was the money, according to one surviving witness.
Then, after looting the register and their purses, he shot all 6 in the back of the head. One miraculously survived.
According to your "logic", thankfully no one was allowed to concealed carry so there was no threat of a "vigilante" interfering with his robbery or the murders.
They are still looking for the killer.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lane_Bryant_shooting
ileus
(15,396 posts)Waldorf
(654 posts)or not is a lousy option. Kudos to the concealed carrier.
krispos42
(49,445 posts)The judicial process was someplace else at the time, sitting in squad car.
The person was not hunting down a criminal after the crime occurred. So it was not vigilantism.
The only way to stop this violent criminal with a weapon, and to protect the innocent, was to stop shoot him.
jmg257
(11,996 posts)2. A person may not use deadly physical force upon another person
under circumstances specified in subdivision one unless:
(a) The actor reasonably believes that such other person is using or
about to use deadly physical force. Even in such case, however, the
actor may not use deadly physical force if he or she knows that with
complete personal safety, to oneself and others he or she may avoid the
necessity of so doing by retreating; except that the actor is under no
duty to retreat if he or she is:
(i) in his or her dwelling and not the initial aggressor; or
(ii) a police officer or peace officer or a person assisting a police
officer or a peace officer at the latter`s direction, acting pursuant to
section 35.30; or
(b) He or she reasonably believes that such other person is committing
or attempting to commit a kidnapping, forcible rape, forcible criminal
sexual act or robbery; or...
JonathanRackham
(1,604 posts)Then a mass killing was stopped.
louis-t
(23,716 posts)That doesn't count the one in my state where a lady pulled her legal concealed pistol and shot at a shoplifter as he drove off.
branford
(4,462 posts)For instance, there's an entire Reddit group just to document a fraction of the stories that actually make the news. I would also suggest you try a Google search. Notably, stories where simply brandishing a legal firearm in response to an assailant, where the perpetrator is neither killed nor wounded, probably accounts for the vast majority of defensive gun uses, but rarely make the news or even reported to authorities.
https://www.reddit.com/r/dgu/
JonathanRackham
(1,604 posts)Or is it intentionally omitted?
branford
(4,462 posts)SecularMotion
(7,981 posts)branford
(4,462 posts)No one is denying the existence of gun crime. However, facts are facts, and it is beyond any doubt that firearms are used frequently for lawful self-defense.
You can choose to ignore this inconvenient fact, but most of the American do not, as clearly indicated in numerous polls and the election victories of pro-gun rights candidates, both Democrat and Republican.
Lastly, even if guns were never used as a means of lawful self-defense, it would not change the fact that individual gun ownership is a protected constitutional right and part of the cultural heritage of many in our nation, and that firearms are indeed used for other legitimate purposes such as hunting and sport.
This point is adequately exemplified in the Democratic Platform's position on firearms,
ileus
(15,396 posts)DonP
(6,185 posts)Plus it brings out the crazier; "I don't want any criminal to suffer harm" crowd.
The "They only want your money/watch/I-Phone/etc., just give it to them and they'll go away". Nothing like trusting to the tender mercies of an armed robber with a lengthy record.
But as long as it's someone else money and life, they can afford to be generous.
Hey, it's a free country, so if they choose to be a chalk outline, that's their choice, not mine.
eppur_se_muova
(37,397 posts)but remember, we saw a " target="_blank">weasel riding a woodpecker first -- and we didn't build a national policy around it.
DonP
(6,185 posts)gejohnston
(17,502 posts)The first one is very relevant to the discussion.
http://www.amazon.com/Point-Blank-Guns-Violence-America/dp/020230762X/ref=pd_sim_14_4?ie=UTF8&dpID=516ANRPVQNL&dpSrc=sims&preST=_AC_UL160_SR106%2C160_&refRID=1ASSV3MACCNDTPTP00NF
http://www.amazon.com/Armed-Considered-Dangerous-Second-Edition/dp/0202362426/ref=pd_bxgy_14_3?ie=UTF8&refRID=1ASSV3MACCNDTPTP00NF
DonP
(6,185 posts)"Police say charges are unlikely against a licensed concealed-carry gun owner who shot and killed a robbery suspect after he threatened a worker with what turned out to be a paint gun in Gage Park on the Southwest Side over the weekend.
"The Chicago Police Department is wrapping up its investigation and charges do not appear likely," the department said in a statement."
The cops have reviewed the in store video and turned it all over to the lawyers now. From the reports, 3 shots, all center mass hits, no one else was injured.
Now we're getting the families; "he was a great guy and never hurt anyone" stories. To buy that you just have to ignore the 20 years of crimes, convictions and jail time.
Then you have to believe the customer, working guy wiring money back to family in Mexico, was out with a "gun stuck in his pants", just looking to shoot somebody, at least that's what some of our gun control supporters seem to posit.
ileus
(15,396 posts)DonP
(6,185 posts)The police reports gave more details. Airsoft gun, no orange tip of course.
Turns out the masked robber (Gildersleeve) grabbed the owners 13 year old son outside the Bodega/currency exchange, pushed the gun against his head and dragged him inside. The mother and teenage sister said it looked, and he acted, like it was a real gun.
Then he forced the mother, 16 year old girl and boy into the back and started an argument with the customer, who didn't want to go in the back room. According to the 16 year old Gildersleeve tried to force the customer in the back at gunpoint.
That prompted the customer (40 year old Hispanic Male) to draw and fire, 3 shots center mass, dead at the scene.
Airsoft, dumber than bringing a knife to a gun fight.
TeddyR
(2,493 posts)Pops the balloon of the posters on here saying that it was the shooter's "wet dream" or something along those lines because he got to shoot a black guy.