Police are investigating a deadly shooting in southeast Charlotte Sunday night, after a taxi driver shot and killed a man trying to rob him.
Police were called out to the 11000 block of John Price Road just before 9:45 p.m., Sunday night. The cab driver told police he was called out to the Colonial Village at Stone Point apartment complex to pick up a fare.
Thats when the cab driver told police he was flagged down by a man, who got into the right front passenger seat. As the cab was driving away from the complex, the man pulled out a gun and demanded money from the cab driver.
That's when the cab driver pulled out his own handgun and shot the man, killing him.
Has anyone else noticed an increase in the reporting of this type of incident in the main stream? I certainly have. There have been more of these defensive stories in the news over the last couple months than over the entire year previous. Why would that be? Are they happening more frequently? Has the main-stream media been listening to the complaints of the pro-gun folks who have claimed all along that these situations are not that rare and have been underreported? What do you think?
As usual, though, I have some doubts about this one. Perhaps the investigators do too, as evidenced by their call for witnesses.
My question is this: if you're driving and the passenger has a gun on you, how fast do you have to be to pull your gun and shoot him without getting shot yourself? You'd have to be faster than the guy we saw on Breda's blog.
What's your opinion? Does the cab driver's story make sense to you? Please leave a comment.
We of course were not there and can only speculate but as far as the Taxi driver being able to get the drop on the robber, it is possible.
ReplyDeleteThe robber could be distracted by something or have his reflexes slowed by drugs. He could have been bluffing and hesitated. His gun could have been unloaded or out of battery or broken.
Probably though he had done this before and just expected the cabby to hand him money and didn't realize someone would dare fight back.
If the cab driver was wearing his gun on his hip in plain view of the criminal, then yes, he would have to be faster than the blink of an eye. Once again though, real life is not like Hollywood westerns.
ReplyDeleteIf the robber is not expecting armed resistance (which most aren't), then any distraction is not going to be followed. The driver knows where the money is kept, the robber doesn't. The driver knows where his gun is, the robber doesn't. Since the robber already has threatened the cab driver, the driver has nothing to lose with drawing his gun. He cannot read the robber's mind.
Why would police want to know if there are any witnesses? You have got to be kidding me. Before you say the police are sloppy because they just accept DGUs at face value (they don't). Now, that the story includes the information that the police are doing their job (which they were before, you just didn't want to acknowledge it), you think it casts suspicion on the driver.
Has anyone else noticed an increase in the reporting of this type of incident in the main stream?
Maybe that is because some of us have been beating it in your head that they happen all the time.
I think you forget that the robber is not expecting resistance, much less armed resistance.
ReplyDeleteThere's not an increase in these events in the media, you're simply noticing them more often.
This seems like a cut & dry good shoot to me. As for the investigators wanting witnesses, that is SOP.
Of course it makes sense. The bad guy is using his gun like a magic wand. He waves it around and gets what he wants. He ran up on someone who wouldn't play along and got shot.
ReplyDeleteHmm, quite frankly these stories never make sense to me.
ReplyDeleteDunno if you saw THIS, but the whole investigation is hanging on whether Smith had a gun or not, as to whether the cops were justified.
It's like--a gun excuses EVERYTHING violent that happens subsequent to that...
As for seeing more of these things, I don't know the answer.
ReplyDeleteSeveral possible causes could be implicated
(1) more such events are happening
(2) the same (or fewer) are happening compared to the past year/decade, but they are being reported more
(3) the same are being reported, but it somehow slipped your notice.
I recall giving you links to a couple of websites which aggregate such stories.
In case you forget, here they are again:
Gun Watch
Civilian Gun Defense
If you peruse them, you will discover a steady rate of such events being seen by local news sources over the past four years or so.
So MikeB just sent me this email:
ReplyDeleteAm in a hurry writing you this note,Just wanted to seek your help on something very important, you are the only person i could reach at this point, and i hope you come to my aid. Because something very terrible is happening to me now,i need a favor from you now,I had a trip here in UK on a mission.
Unfortunately for me all my money got stolen on my way to the hotel where i lodged along with my bag were my passport was ,And since then i have been without any money i am even owing the hotel here.
So i have limited access to emails for now, please i need you to lend me about 1200Pounds so i can make arrangements and return back please,i have spoken to the embassy here but they are not responding to the matter effectively, I will return the money back to you as soon as i get home, I am so confused right now.
I will be waiting to hear from you.
Regards
M
FWM and any others who've received that e-mail, My Yahoo account has been compromised, that's the word they use. I think everyone in my inbox got that message. My phone started ringing at 3:00 a.m. this morning.
ReplyDeleteI'm dreadfully sorry for the confusion. I opened a new account
mikeb302000@rocketmail.com.
Daisy, Thanks for the link to that story.
ReplyDeleteASM826, I suppose your exactly right that an armed robber might be expecting no resistance and therefore be an easy target for an armed taxi driver.
MikeB,
ReplyDeleteSince you have a legal email account that has been "compromised" for illegal purposes, what are you going to do to expunge your guilt?
You need to take responsibility for not securing your email account better.
As I see it, using your shared responsibility theory, you are now guilty of spamming many people and attempted fraud.
Please let me know which prison you will be reporting to.
Bob S.
ReplyDeleteThat really cracked me up. Thanks! I'm still chuckling.
I agree with FWM. I got a good chuckle out of that one.
ReplyDeleteGood chuckle or not MikeB you are still on the hook.
ReplyDeleteBy your very own logic, you are responsible for the violations, right?
Consequences for "violating the spam law carries a punishment of up to five years in prison".
Which prison are you going to report to?
Karrde, Thanks again for the links. I look at those sites every once in a while. But, all told what's there, 1,000 or 2,000 per year? And aren't some of them questionable? Where are the other 2,499,998?
ReplyDeleteI know many of them required no shots fired and no police reports, but that many?
How many do you say there are a year?
MIkeB,
ReplyDeleteI am very disappointed in you.
If you aren't going to report to prison, are you at least going to work to reduce the flow of "legal email accounts".
You call upon gun owners all the time to reduce the flow of firearms, yet you clearly aren't living up to your principles (big surprise) now, are you?
What steps are you taking to reduce your contribution to the spam problem?
Are you resisting calls to tighten email account accessibility?
Maybe we should have background checks before handing out these easily hacked accounts.
Fingerprints, pictures are also great ideas.
Hey, how about an 8 hour training class, it would only cost you $50 to $150 dollars! Then you could pay for the "privilege" of exercising your right to free speech with a "anonymous email account license" - that would be $100 and good for 3 years.
Come on MikeB, fess up to your responsibility.
Unless of course, this was setup as a "straw account" for spammers.
Are you in league with those that are violating the law MikeB...say it ain't so.
Some of them are questionable. (I'd estimate about 1%...but that's just my opinion.)
ReplyDeleteAnd the 2.5 million number includes an estimate of a large number of such defenses that are resolved without injury to anyone. (See here for a tale of one that was resolved without gunfire...and here for the author critiquing his own actions that increased his risk.)
Those stories, and the stories you post, are anecdotes.
If you ask any social scientist, the plural of anecdote is not data.
However, I offer them as examples. The 2.5 million number is mostly from the work of Gary Kleck, a criminologist. He offers it as a "squishy result", the upper end of a range which lies between 500,000 and 2,500,000.
If you disagree with him, I encourage you to pick up his book and read it before you say that he is wrong. Because he can defend himself better than I can defend him.
The book is easy to find; I found it in a public library.
Bob, It was a funny joke, but you turn it into tedium when you keep at it like that.
ReplyDeleteThe reason gun owners are partly responsible is not because they own guns. It's because they support initiatives that prevent a successful reduction of guns ending up in the hands of criminals. When you individually or as a group can take pride in the fact that you've blocked attempts at closing the "loopholes" and other policies which would have a direct and immediate result on crime, then you are responsible.
There are other ways too. If, let's say, you keep an unsecured gun in the house and someone breaks in and takes it, you must share in that responsibility right along with the crook.
The point is all your silly comparisons are just that, silly. We're talking about guns and your attitude towards gun control laws.
MikeB,
ReplyDeleteOnce again you can't keep your story straight.
The reason gun owners are partly responsible is not because they own guns.
You've said because gun owners get their guns stolen, sometimes because they didn't 'secure them enough' they are responsible for the crimes committed with the firearms.
Heck, your last post proves what I am saying.
Isn't there any way we could encourage gun owners to be more careful with their weapons? If the monetary damage of having a gun stolen is not enough motivation, would legal sanctions help? What if all guns were registered to specific individuals and those individuals had to be accountable for their weapons?
Your email was hacked, should you be monetarily responsible for the damage?
It's because they support initiatives that prevent a successful reduction of guns ending up in the hands of criminals.
The vast majority of gun owners don't support initiatives. The vast majority of gun owners aren't aware of the issues. So how can they be supporting anything?
The vast majority of gun control advocates however are supporting initiatives that disarm and make it harder for citizens to exercise their rights. These laws/initiatives have resulted in people being unable to prevent rape and murder....why shouldn't you -as a gun control advocate-- be responsible for those crimes?
There are other ways too. If, let's say, you keep an unsecured gun in the house and someone breaks in and takes it, you must share in that responsibility right along with the crook.
Now you can't even keep your story straight in the same comment.
The reason gun owners are partly responsible is not because they own guns.
So which is it Sparky?
The point is all your silly comparisons are just that, silly. We're talking about guns and your attitude towards gun control laws.
Once again Sparky, you may be talking about gun control. I AM TALKING ABOUT MY RIGHTS.
You failed to insure your email account was properly secured. People were spammed.
someone breaks in and takes it, you must share in that responsibility right along with the crook.
That is what you just said! You said that if someone takes something of yours, you share responsibility along side the crook.
policies which would have a direct and immediate result on crime, then you are responsible.
ReplyDeleteAnd yet YOU and your ilk pushing for said restrictions have time and time again failed to prove that they will have a "direct and immediate result on crime."
Bob, You're spinning of my comments has now reached such a dizzying height that I honestly couldn't follow it.
ReplyDeleteMikeB,
ReplyDeleteWhat can't you follow? The truth.
You claim over and over again that simply owning firearms makes us responsible for the crimes committed with firearms. 10% and shared responsibility, right?
Someone owns a firearm that was stolen.
You own a email account that was hacked.
You claim if that person's firearms wasn't "sufficiently secured" they are responsible for the crimes committed, right?
So, why aren't you responsible for the crimes committed with your hacked email account?
It really is that simple.
No, Bob, it's not owning the firearms, per se. It's opposing the gun control laws, it's improperly securing your guns, it's going berserk and shooting up the joint. Those are the things that make you responsible.
ReplyDeleteMikeB,
ReplyDeleteYou failed to properly secure your email account or it wouldn't have been stolen.
That is the logic you are using for gun owners, right?
So, by that logic you are responsible for the crime of spam and fraud.
Care to define what it takes to "responsibly" secure a firearm?
Or an email address?
Well Mike, you improperly secured your email, and then somebody used it for a fishing scheme that could cost somebody their life savings if they allow their banking records to be party to a scammer posing as you.
ReplyDeleteSo Bob's point aren't you responsible for the damages and crimes done by the scammer? without your email, nothing would have happend....