Local news reports via Southern Beale
A Ford Focus was traveling on West 116th Street when the car ahead made an abrupt turn without using a turn signal and backed into his home's driveway.
The Focus stopped and the three people inside -- a 19-year-old man, a
22-year-old man and a 20-year-old woman behind the wheel -- argued
with the offending driver, a CCW permit holder.
The trio in the Focus left after the argument, but soon returned.
The 22-year-old passenger got out of the Focus and hurled a bottle at
the permit holder's car, cracking the windshield. The permit holder
shot at the man as he sprinted away. The shooter missed his target and
struck the 19-year-old man sitting in the Focus' passenger seat.
The victim was driven to MetroHealth Medical Center with gunshot wounds to his upper body and ankle. The shooter was arrested. No charges had been filed as of noon Thursday.
The bumbling gun owner shot at the man AS HE SPRINTED AWAY and MISSED him, HITTING another man.
Please take notice, this is something the gun-rights fanatics have claimed has never happened in the history of concealed carry. According to them, only cops do this, concealed carry civilians are inexplicably better at gun management.
"Please take notice, this is something the gun-rights fanatics have claimed has never happened in the history of concealed carry. According to them, only cops do this, concealed carry civilians are inexplicably better at gun management."
ReplyDeleteBullshit.
Yet another straw man you set up and tip over. Why do you do this over and over? Are you that unsure of your arguments that you have to put idiotic words in our mouths?
Either you haven't been following the discussion for long or you're a blatant liar.
DeleteLike Anon, I look forward to you providing one--just one example of "gun rights fanatics" (something else I've never encountered) claiming that concealed carry licensees never miss their intended target and hit innocent bystanders.
DeleteI'm not holding my breath, but I'm looking forward to it.
I've heard arguments that it happens Less often due to police often having liability protection that carriers don't and due to carriers having normal triggers whereas some of the police with the worst accuracy are struggling against triggers that have been modified to be harder to pull. However, I've never hear anyone claim that carriers NEVER hit bystanders.
DeleteOn the contrary, I've seen discussions about how we fear that, so we practice shooting--both on this blog and elsewhere. You're going to need to show a lot of examples to prove that this one isn't a straw man you've conjured up.
Kurt, don't you know by now I would never allow you to send me to Google searching for something that'll prove me right or back up something I've said? What I said is true and any honest person who's been following the discussions knows it. Naturally that leaves you out.
DeleteI do indeed know that you have a habit of making assertions that you are absolutely incapable of backing up, and thus I'm not at all surprised by your refusal to even bother to try. I figured, though, that some who are less familiar with your behavior could use this demonstration.
DeleteThank you for proving my point so conclusively.
Proof by vigorous assertion, eh. Course, we could go back through here and pull half a dozen conversations just from this site that prove you wrong, but you'd just ignore them or say, oh, those are the exceptions to what I and all "saints" believe!
DeleteI'm guessing that the reason that Ohio issued this stellar citizen a CCW permit is probably because he is the kind of guy that knows when to kill another citizen who is misbehaving. This is surely much cheaper than training and bringing on salary yet another law enforcement officer expecting a generous pension for forty years of faithful service. This way, we can keep the bad guys at bay and keep the good guys out of court.
ReplyDeleteLet us all applaud the unrestricted red states which have advocated shall issue, common sense policies. I think that we are all anticipating a greater freedom as good guys are allowed to kill bad guys free from legal restraints.
Yay!
Yeah, not only was he using lethal force against a guy for vandalism, the guy was running away when the maniac shot at him.
DeleteIt sounds like there are certainly some details that have yet to come to light on this one. The trio in the car left and came back for round 2? Its also strange that the "suspect" isn't named. Perhaps its policy to wait for charges to be filed to name people, which isn't a bad idea.
ReplyDeleteBut given the details we have, did the shooter act badly or not?
DeleteMainly the target of his attention was fleeing. That's a bit no no right there. Then, the offensive act, was it vandalism or a lethal attack with the bottle? I doubt the latter. How about you? Either way though, even if you say it was a lethal attack, it failed and was over by the time our hero marksman fired.
I personally wouldn't fire at a retreating person. And given the details given, I cant think of a reason that would make it ok. Perhaps more will come out soon when the decision is made whether to charge, and for what.
DeleteI find it curious that you word your condemnation of these despicable behaviors so delicately. It's like you're reluctant to blame the gun owner, regardless of how badly he acts.
DeleteI find it curious that you word your condemnation of these despicable behaviors so delicately.
DeleteYeah, SSG--stop being so well spoken, thus proving yourself to be a "gun rights fanatic."
Mikeb gets more amusing every day.
"I find it curious that you word your condemnation of these despicable behaviors so delicately."
DeletePerhaps we should first see how despicable he is before condemning him. So far, there doesn't seem to be any word of charges. The CCW holder should have at least appeared before a judge by now.
ss, shooting at a fleeing person who was guilty of nothing worse than vandalism demands a stronger response than this:
Delete"I personally wouldn't fire at a retreating person."