Just one more example why having your wits about you is more effective than having a weapon for self defense. Having a weapon didn't for HIS self defense didn't help the bad guy one bit.
From the Fargo station KFGO:
Suspected Fargo Bank Robber Nabbed
January 9, 2012
The key suspect in the robbery of three banks in one week, including a Bank Of The West branch in Fargo was captured in dramatic fashion Saturday afternoon in Bloomington, Minnesota. 
Suspected Fargo Bank Robber Nabbed
The key suspect in the robbery of three banks in one week, including a Bank of the West branch in Fargo was captured in dramatic fashion Saturday afternoon in Bloomington, Minn.According to Dan Orr, Chief U.S. Marshal for North Dakota, William St. John's luck ran out after a failed carjacking attempt. An off-duty police officer witnessed the event and attempted to stop it but backed off when St.John said he had a gun.
As St. John fled the area on foot, he committed three home invasions, threatening residents in each residence.
Police were closing in on him when he tried to take a hostage inside the third home. As St. John was leaving the home with the hostage, the hostage and two other residents of the home turned on him, tackled him and held him for police.
Orr says on three separate occasions within the past two days, authorities were only minutes behind St. John but he managed to get away.
The 43-year old St.John is from South Dakota and had been released from prison three weeks ago.
How about having one's wits about oneself and having a gun--that's the best possibility.
ReplyDeleteSounds like he wasn't the least bit deterred that he had no gun rights. Of course criminals rarely are. That is why gun control only applies to the law abiding.
ReplyDeleteFWM wrote: FatWhiteMan said...
ReplyDeleteSounds like he wasn't the least bit deterred that he had no gun rights. Of course criminals rarely are. That is why gun control only applies to the law abiding.
It sounds like he knew the jig was up and he was running for dear life trying to evade the consequences of his behavior.
It would have been a far worse situation if he either had a gun when he started, or if he was able to take a hostage at knife point, and subsequently get his hands on a gun from either the owner of the carjacked vehicle or the residents of one of the houses.
It is only in your delusional mind FWM that someone with a gun either hangs onto that gun, or is able effectively shoot someone without being injured themselves.
And NO Greg, any gun in this situation would ONLY have made it worse, notably in the possibility that someone this desperate and determined might get it away from the original holder of the weapon, or in adding tremendous confusion to the situation when the police arrived just moments later.
In this instance, no one was shot, no one was killed, and the only person with injuries from the event is the bad guy who is in police custody and will be held accountable in a court of law.
Everyone wins without a gun in the picture. Again, only in the deluded thinking of the gun loons do they always win, and never make a mistake.
Real life is not like your gun lunatic wet fantasy.
"It is only in your delusional mind FWM that someone with a gun either hangs onto that gun, or is able effectively shoot someone without being injured themselves."
ReplyDeleteWhere did that come from?
Where are the multiple sources indicating that anyone recovered a gun from this criminal? Some articles mention that the criminal told people he had a gun but I cannot find any articles about anyone actually seeing or recovering a gun. According to this article the criminal threatened a homeowner with a knife:
ReplyDeletehttp://www.kare11.com/news/article/955446/391/Suspected-bank-robber-arrested-following-weekend-crime-spree-in-Bloomington
Why would you use a knife to threaten someone if you had a gun?
Plus the criminal was in the middle of his third home invasion before someone stopped him -- and it wasn't the police! It sounds like no one was seriously injured physically. And I'm glad the residents of that third home were able to overpower the criminal. Unfortunately the residents of that third home had to be within arms reach of the criminal -- putting themselves in great danger -- to overpower him. Does anyone think the two male residents of the home would have tried to tackle the criminal if he was pointing a gun at them? The off-duty police officer who first encountered the criminal sure didn't when the criminal simply said that he had a gun.
What if the woman he was trying to kidnap was alone? What if he had plowed into a pedestrian while driving around during this crime spree? What if he had harmed any of the residents in the first two homes he invaded? What if he managed to stab one of the two men who tackled him?
What I see is how a violent criminal put a lot of lives at risk until citizens finally stopped him. If the occupant of the car or first home had been armed, they could have stopped him right then and there.
dog gone wrote:
ReplyDelete"In this instance ... the only person with injuries from the event is the bad guy ..."
dog gone you couldn't be more wrong. While the car jacking victim, the occupants of the homes invaded, and the woman that the criminal tried to kidnap may not have serious physical injuries, they have serious emotional injuries that may never totally heal.
Your solution -- let a criminal attack multitudes of people until a citizen is finally able to physically overpower the criminal (or the police arrive) -- does impose an extreme cost on society. But I guess you don't care about that as long as we can save the life of the criminal.
Oh yeah, before you rant about all the possible dangers that armed citizens pose to society when they use their firearms during an attack, find me just 10 documented instances of armed citizens shooting bystanders last year. And while you're at it, find me 10 documented instances of attackers taking guns away from armed citizens and using them on the citizens last year.
But, of course, no one ever dies from not having a gun. . .
ReplyDeleteIn many jurisdictions, off-duty police officers are required to have a concealed handgun. I have to wonder why the officer in this story didn't intervene.
ReplyDeleteSounds like vigilante justice to me. Why didn't these people simply call the police and let the proper authorities make the arrest? Instead they assaulted this dude and should be prosecuted for their behavior.
ReplyDeleteAnon wrote Sounds like vigilante justice to me. Why didn't these people simply call the police and let the proper authorities make the arrest? Instead they assaulted this dude and should be prosecuted for their behavior.
ReplyDeleteFine by me. Only the guy who got his chimes rung had any weapon whatsoever (the innocent victims of his crimes only had 'tools' for their defense, not weapons).
If they want to knock him down and sit on him for the minute or two the cops were behind him, I think that is freaking fabulous.
The only thing that would have made this a better story would be if there was a family dog to nip his ankles or maybe bite him in the hamstring area to keep him in situ until the police were finished cuffing him.
So DG is ok with people beating the crap out of others vigilante style just not shooting them to death. Is shooting them in the hamstring ok or only biting them there is allowed? These people took the law into their own hands and should be prosecuted for it. I can't believe you condone such a violent response by vigilante citizens such as this.
ReplyDelete