An Interesting Twist In The Whole "Gun Control" Issue

The friendliest place on the web for anyone that follows U2.
If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.

U2Bama

Rock n' Roll Doggie
Joined
Oct 4, 2000
Messages
3,405
Location
Gulf Coast State of Mine
It has often been stated in these forums that a violent robber or other criminal is never defeated by an "ordinary citizen" type who happens to (legally) own a handgun. Yesterday, an incident occurred at a convenience store in Birmingham not far from where I grew up.

A newspaper delivery man was stocking a newspaper vending machine outside of the store when a wild burglar burst into the store jumping and screaming at the clerk and aiming a shotgun at his face. (NOTE: anyone can go to a sporting goods or department store and purchase a shotgun, which is primarily used for hunting). Well, the little ol' newspaper man had a handgun and went in and interrupted the would-be robber's attack. The delivery man shot the robber, then had to shoot him a few more times. The store clerk had been robbed 3 times in past years but was always armed as well and usually shot back

I feel that many people will say that the newspaper man should be "punished to the full extent of the law," although the police do not plan to file any charges. If the newspaper man had not been there or had he NOT been armed, would these same people want leniency for the robber if he had gone into the store, robbed the clerk, then killed the clerk?

Here's the article, from today's BIRMINGHAM NEWS:



Newspaper carrier shoots, kills robber


10/08/02

CAROL ROBINSON
News staff writer


A newspaper carrier killed a gun-wielding robber at a convenience store early Monday after the man burst into the store screaming wildly and pointing a shotgun at the clerk.

Sam Harper, 43, was filling the racks with Monday's edition of The Birmingham News when he saw the robber put on a wig and storm into the Chevron at 8730 First Ave. North.

Chaos erupted. When it was over, the robber was dead on the store floor and the clerk praised Harper for his bravery and fast finger.

"I think Sam saved my life, no doubt about it," said clerk Tom Burtnett. "I was looking down the barrel of a shotgun and a shotgun don't miss."

Police had not identified the dead man Monday. He is the fourth man in recent years shot trying to rob that Chevron. The clerk, Burtnett, shot the other three.

Harper said it was about 3:20 a.m. when he saw the gunman round the corner of the building.

"He went sailing in there with the shotgun," Harper said. "The guy was berserk. He was screaming his guts out."

Harper looked through the window and saw the store clerk cornered in the cashier cage, the shotgun inches away from Burtnett and aimed straight at him.

"The clerk was like a fish in a barrel and he (the robber) was stirring around in there with a shotgun," Harper said. "It was a terrible thing."

Harper, who has delivered newspapers for 22 years, grabbed his gun and went inside.

"I just reacted," he said. "It was total chaos and it was pretty terrifying."

He fired three shots at the gunman. The bullets hit their mark but didn't stop the robber, Harper and Burtnett said.

"He ran toward me and I shot him twice more," Harper said. "After five he fell down. But then he got up again."

The wounded robber crawled to the back of the store, still hollering and thrashing about, and then died, the witnesses said. His shotgun had dropped behind the store counter.

It didn't appear Monday there would be any charges filed.

After the shooting, Harper gave his statement to police, reluctantly accepted Burtnett's profuse gratitude, slept for a few hours and then got up to finish his route after sunrise.

Burtnett, a 53-year-old former police officer, reflected on the dangers of his job as a night store clerk. Almost every two years for the past six years he's been faced with a similar scenario. He shot one robber twice in the leg, another fatally in the chest and in June 2001 critically wounded another man, who is now in prison, when he tried to pull off a pre-dawn robbery at the store.

He said he would have shot this robber if Harper hadn't.

"Sam had the drop on me," Burtnett said.

It would make sense that the word on the street would be to find a safer place to rob, but Burtnett said that's not so.

"Crackheads don't care," he said. "Do you think they read the newspaper and watch television? No."
 
U2Bama said:
He fired three shots at the gunman. The bullets hit their mark but didn't stop the robber, Harper and Burtnett said.

"He ran toward me and I shot him twice more," Harper said. "After five he fell down. But then he got up again."

The wounded robber crawled to the back of the store, still hollering and thrashing about, and then died, the witnesses said. His shotgun had dropped behind the store counter.

It didn't appear Monday there would be any charges filed.
[/B]

:eyebrow:
 
community service, Bama

let me pose this question to the people who say the newspaper guy is guilty of "murder," if someone broke into your house and was threatening your spouse or mother or sister or whoever with a shotgun pointed at their face, and you had the chance to bust in on him and "get him before he gets you," (ie, terminate him before he destroys your world), what would you do? would you ask him to drop his weapon? hope he doesn't turn around and blast you instead? maybe you would shoot him in the leg (you're a marksman remember and have pinpoint accuracy, especially when you are panicked and under extreme duress), maybe you just hide in the corner and call the police and hope they show up in time...

maybe this guy got carried away, maybe not, considering he was still coming at him, but either way, why so much sympathy for violent criminals who set out with the intent to put peoples' lives in danger, criminals with no regard for human life whatsoever? I'm not saying we need a million vigilantes running around, but unless your interpretation of "punishing someone to the fullest extent of the law" and mine are different, I'm missing something completely here

so what would you do, save an innocent person or hope a raving crackhead decides not to unload his shotgun?
 
Wanderer if anyone broke into my house and threatened my loved ones, and I had a gun, I would sure as hell use it. I say that now anyway, never having been in that situation. Family and individual safety means so much. I know at least, I would likely get the gun and at minimum, threaten back. If it became me versus them, and just a question of who shoots first, I would like to be the one who shoots first. I would rather live with the guilt than watch a family member shot dead in cold blood.

I would still be murdering someone though. Manslaughter, if you prefer. Self defence, whatever.

You people pay such an incredibly high price for these freedoms. And you are really no freer than others. We cannot own a gun without absolute proof of necessity here, and I can tell you now, we do not lack any freedom you claim you gain by owning firearms.
 
Angela Harlem said:
Wanderer if anyone broke into my house and threatened my loved ones, and I had a gun, I would sure as hell use it. I say that now anyway, never having been in that situation. Family and individual safety means so much. I know at least, I would likely get the gun and at minimum, threaten back. If it became me versus them, and just a question of who shoots first, I would like to be the one who shoots first. I would rather live with the guilt than watch a family member shot dead in cold blood.

I would still be murdering someone though. Manslaughter, if you prefer. Self defence, whatever.


You seem to use the term "murder" for any case where a human causes another human to die. Correct? I, on the other hand, would not consider killing someone in self-defense to be "murder." The dictionary on my desk defines murder as "The unlawful killing of one human being by another, especially when premeditated." By that definition, this is definitely not murder, as it was not "unlawful." But regardless of what we call it, or how we define "murder", you are saying that this was a morally wrong act, right? What would you say would be a morally right response in this situatioin?
 
What I don't understand is why ppl don't just shoot to injure...
There's no need for a lot of the defensive killings that happen within the police force in the states as well as in domestic situations as well I'm sure.

If you're going to shoot someone, go for their legs or something, no need to shoot them multiple times in the chest area.
 
I always though that if I would find a robber in my house and:
- I wouldn't have a gun then he would threaten me, take away my valuables and leave me with some emotional scars
- I would draw a gun on him then he would probably try to get me first (with whatever weapon he has on him)

though option 1 doesn't sound like a picnic I wouldn't want to gamble my life on option 2
 
I just find it hard to believe that a shot or two to the ankle or the arm wouldn't have had the effect of preventing the robbery. Were nearly a dozen shots, which ultimately killed the man, truly necessary? I believe in self-defense, but not in manslaughter.
 
Sparkysgrrrl said:
What I don't understand is why ppl don't just shoot to injure...
There's no need for a lot of the defensive killings that happen within the police force in the states as well as in domestic situations as well I'm sure.

If you're going to shoot someone, go for their legs or something, no need to shoot them multiple times in the chest area.

Unlike a gun range, where you can calmly select your targets, the endorphin rush experienced during a robbery makes target selection difficult, if not impossible. My guess is that even those with significant handgun training could miss a person completely at short range in a surprise situation.

I doubt the newspaper guy had time to think "kneecap or chest", aim and fire.
 
U2Bama said:
It has often been stated in these forums that a violent robber or other criminal is never defeated by an "ordinary citizen" type [/B]

Statements which include "never" or "allways" are wrong most of the time ,-)

Off course you can find weirest examples pro and contra
(i personally saw an employe of a gas-station (who did not have even a knife) who got a robber (who had a gun) on the run.
Does that mean anything but he was lucky?

If you take a look at statistics overall i'd say that restrict gunlaws help to reduce murder. But of course even the strictest laws are no guarantee

Klaus
 
U2Bama said:
NOTE: anyone can go to a sporting goods or department store and purchase a shotgun, which is primarily used for hunting. [/B]

Well is this not the best line in the whole post? Does this not strike fear into everyone. This is why Gun control should be implemented. If a crack head can buy a gun from a sports store then there is something wrong. We should be starting with stoping people getting guns not getting guns ourselves and kill the ones with guns. Does anyone see the violent circle?
 
Re: Re: An Interesting Twist In The Whole "Gun Control" Issue

bonoman said:


Well is this not the best line in the whole post? Does this not strike fear into everyone. This is why Gun control should be implemented. If a crack head can buy a gun from a sports store then there is something wrong. We should be starting with stoping people getting guns not getting guns ourselves and kill the ones with guns. Does anyone see the violent circle?

This is exactly how I feel about it. If fewer guns are made available, over time, there will be fewer guns in the hands of criminals. I do realize that if someone really wants to get his/her hands on a gun, they will find a way, but why do we have to make it so easy?

If the bad guys have little or no access to guns, the average citizen wouldn't need a gun for protection.

Yeah, I'm a dreamer but I hope that someday my kids and future grandkids won't have to deal with gun violence.
 
Re: Re: Re: An Interesting Twist In The Whole "Gun Control" Issue

Bono's American Wife said:
Yeah, I'm a dreamer but I hope that someday my kids and future grandkids won't have to deal with gun violence.

Dream big. Dream that people would value human life, to see others as created in God's image.
 
nbcrusader said:


Unlike a gun range, where you can calmly select your targets, the endorphin rush experienced during a robbery makes target selection difficult, if not impossible. My guess is that even those with significant handgun training could miss a person completely at short range in a surprise situation.

I doubt the newspaper guy had time to think "kneecap or chest", aim and fire.
True one would experience quite an endorphin rush, but by that logic there is no point in getting proper hand gun training, because if that "rush" is going to make it impossible to aim and shoot correctly then what is the point in even taking the time out to learn?
 
nbcrusader said:


Unlike a gun range, where you can calmly select your targets, the endorphin rush experienced during a robbery makes target selection difficult, if not impossible. My guess is that even those with significant handgun training could miss a person completely at short range in a surprise situation.

I doubt the newspaper guy had time to think "kneecap or chest", aim and fire.

I've talked with my husband about this a lot. He has 30+ years of gun experience (he was a cop for 17 years). After he retired, in order to carry a concealed weapon, he was required to re-qualify at the police firing range every 4 years. Every time he renewed his permit, he scored in the expert marksman range.

Even with his handgun experience, he freely admits that if he was surprised in a deep sleep or saw one of his family members being threatened, he would not be able to accurately fire a gun and the situation would probably not end up in his favor. This is reason #2 we don't have guns in our home any longer.
 
Sparkysgrrrl said:
What I don't understand is why ppl don't just shoot to injure...
There's no need for a lot of the defensive killings that happen within the police force in the states as well as in domestic situations as well I'm sure.

If you're going to shoot someone, go for their legs or something, no need to shoot them multiple times in the chest area.

If you take a firearms course you are trained to fire "center mass". You do not aim for the legs and arms for the same reason soldiers are not trained to aim for the head. It is a smaller target=less chance to hit your target.
 
Hopefully someone with extensive training is good at aiming, no?
I've known some damn good shooters who can pick off an object from very far off, I would assume that to an experienced shooter, aiming at ones leg or arm would be in the realm of possiblity.
 
Sparkysgrrrl said:
Hopefully someone with extensive training is good at aiming, no?
I've known some damn good shooters who can pick off an object from very far off, I would assume that to an experienced shooter, aiming at ones leg or arm would be in the realm of possiblity.

There is a difference between "picking" something off at a distance and close quarters with a hand gun.

I for one was an excellent shot with a rifle. However, I was the only one out of 160 soldiers to fail the first round of qualifications with a pistol. It is amazing though the guy next to me had 50 hits with 30 bullets. This is the reason I do not have a hand-gun in my house.

However, in the "heat" of the moment, after training after training after training time and time again, I believe even with the adrenalin pumping, people will follow their instinct which is what they have repeatedly been trained to do. "Center Mass".

The other thing I would like to point out is that the second someone is in a situation with another person posessing a gun is commiting a crime, I would expect thenon-criminal with a weapon to fire not to injure in the leg or arm, but to do what is necessary for their own survival.


Peace to all.
 
call me provincial, but I think you forfeit some of your "rights" when you start threatening people with demands while pointing a shotgun at their head
 
Sparkysgrrrl said:
What I don't understand is why ppl don't just shoot to injure...
There's no need for a lot of the defensive killings that happen within the police force in the states as well as in domestic situations as well I'm sure.

If you're going to shoot someone, go for their legs or something, no need to shoot them multiple times in the chest area.


Originally posted by paxetaurora
I just find it hard to believe that a shot or two to the ankle or the arm wouldn't have had the effect of preventing the robbery. Were nearly a dozen shots, which ultimately killed the man, truly necessary? I believe in self-defense, but not in manslaughter.


THIS is why (emphasis added):

He fired THREE SHOTS at the gunman. The bullets hit their mark but DIDN'T STOP THE ROBBER, Harper and Burtnett said.

"He ran toward me and I shot him TWICE MORE," Harper said. "After five he fell down. But then he got up again."


Like the Energizer Bunny, this robber kept going and going and going in his attempt to go after the newspaper delivery man.

Angela Harlem:

You are trying to make synonyms out of three words that have three different meanings (murder/killing/manslaughter) and self defense, or defense of a third person, is not the same as murder or manslaughter. The newspaper man should not be charged and/or punished because he did this to stop someone who was acting violently towards the store clerk.

There have been TOO MANY cases here where the clerk gets killed. Lately, they have begun fighting back, and with success.

There is a big problem in the world these days with RESPONSIBILITY. If you go and rob a store or rob a person, and you are wounded in the act, it is NO ONE ELSE'S responsibility or fault. It is my opinion that storeowners, homeowners, individuals, whatever should not be charged for fighting off attackers. Yet society is trying to shift responsibility. When a store owner recently chased after two guys who stole from his store, he found out that the robbers had a gun as they fired at him; well, the store owner had one too, and shot both of the robbers. I'm sorry, but the store owner should not be charged, and the robbers should be put in prison ON TOP OF their injuries.

Another lousy example of the lack of responsibility occurred at a high school in the state's capital of Montgomery recently: a group of students were fighting, and two male teachers told them to stop. They did not stop, and the teachers moved in to break it up, and one of the students began throwing punches at the teachers. The teachers restrained the student and put him on the ground. The student's mom didn't think this was right, so she filed a formal complaint. The teachers were ARRESTED and put in jail! What kind of system is this that we are creating? DON'T CAUSE TROUBLE! DON'T START FIGHTS! DON'T HIT TEACHERS! DON'T ROB THE CONVENIENCE STORE ON 85th STREET! THINK!

~U2Alabama
 
U2Bama said:

If you go and rob a store or rob a person, and you are *wounded* [emphasis mine] in the act, it is NO ONE ELSE'S responsibility or fault. It is my opinion that storeowners, homeowners, individuals, whatever should not be charged for fighting off attackers. Yet society is trying to shift responsibility.

But you say *wounded*. Naturally, no one would have too much sympathy for a robber who took a bullet to an arm or a leg. But when someone is killed, that's entirely different. They can't do their 10-to-20 (or whatever it is) for armed robbery and try to come out a better citizen. They have lost their chance, a chance which is afforded all but the most heinous murderers in our society.

I'm not saying, necessarily, that the shooter in this case really ought to be locked away for a dozen or so years. His intent was clearly self-defense. But neither should we celebrate his act and make him out to be some sort of folk hero. This reminds me of the scene in The American President when Michael Douglas's character (the President) orders an attack on a building in (Libya? Afghanistan? someplace). Even though they decide to strike at a time when the fewest casualties will be likely to occur, they know that there will probably be some loss of life. One of the President's aides commends him for the action, calling it "very Presidential." The President responds, "You've just seen me do the least Presidential thing I do."


Respect for life, like it or not, has to cut both ways.
 
paxetaurora said:

Respect for life, like it or not, has to cut both ways.

Pax, I respect you and your posts. I just find that in this case, I have very little sympathy for someone robbing a store.

It's a simple rule......

You point a gun at people expect them to think you are going to use it.

When you point the gun at people to commit a crime, you are disrespecting life. If I think you are going to use a weapon, I am going to RESPECT life. I am going to respect my life, my wife and childrens' lives, my friends' lives, and my neighbors' lives. The choice is an easy one.


Peace to all.
 
Last edited:
I know what you mean, dread. And I'm not saying that they were wrong to shoot the robber. It's what I would have done were I in the situation.

What I'm saying is that I don't think we should celebrate the death of the robber. I don't want this guy becoming some sort of vigilante hero. I think it's harmful for society to celebrate violent death. It sets a bad example for the youth and paints a lousy picture of us to the rest of the world.

Yes, people should protect themselves and each other. But we shouldn't pat each other on the back when that push comes to the ultimate shove, either. A life was taken. Don't lose sight of that.
 
paxetaurora said:
I know what you mean, dread. And I'm not saying that they were wrong to shoot the robber. It's what I would have done were I in the situation.

What I'm saying is that I don't think we should celebrate the death of the robber. I don't want this guy becoming some sort of vigilante hero. I think it's harmful for society to celebrate violent death. It sets a bad example for the youth and paints a lousy picture of us to the rest of the world.

Yes, people should protect themselves and each other. But we shouldn't pat each other on the back when that push comes to the ultimate shove, either. A life was taken. Don't lose sight of that.

That makes sense to me. I think I misunderstood.

As for taking a life.....I can't sleep at night if I keep a kid in for recess. I would probably be in therapy if I had to use lethal force.
 
There have been so many clerk shootings in the states that its been a long-running joke with Apu.

'Ah the kiss of hot lead how I missed you! I mean...I think I'm dying!'

I tend to agree with those who say if you break and enter/home invade/whatever, you forfeit your own rights and should not expect to be treated with much sympathy if your victim is armed. That said, shooting a guy that much does seem a little excessive...
 
Bama/Spiral_Staircase, I do understand the difference between manslaughter and murder. However no matter what the situation, you have people getting shot. In a situation like this, I get concerned that it can be deemed somehow acceptable that someone is shot dead. Of course the circumstances are always important, and many things influence such events, I am not arguing that. I am not saying it was even wrong of the newspaper guy to do what he did-although I dont really agree with it. Self defence or not, I dont see it as ever acceptable to shoot someone. The self defence argument is fine and a good argument, but to me it just doesn't make the whole thing ok. I even admit that I would possibly do it myself given the same circumstances. Would it be ok though? Not really, I would have killed someone. I dont know if that is any clearer. But thats my view.
If guns are banned to the average citizen, you get in the long run, less shootings in self defence and less occurances of such a reaction from people defending themselves and their property as the end result is less gun possession in the hands of criminals as well.
I dont necessarily disagree with the responsibility aspect either. There was a story over here recently in the paper where a publican caught this young man breaking into his pub. The publican beat him. The young guy decided to sue the publican for his injuries to his self. The young man's mother then decided she wanted to sue and lay charges for the emotional distress she was caused by seeing her bloodied and beat up son. He was awarded I believe $50,000 and the mother received $17,000. I was disgusted with that. I strongly believe in the right to defend yourself and your property as you need, and by commiting a break and enter, yes I believe you are lessening your rights to some extent. But life? What property is worth more than someone's life? If your life is threatened by an individual wielding a gun or other weapon, it does change things again and I wouldn't be passing judgement on any individual who does shoot back in defence - like the case of this clerk and the newspaper man. But you aren't really free of culpability surely?
Thou shalt not kill right?
The law even says that one too.

Remove the guns and you remove some of the threat.
 
Just one more thought re: the robber being shot 5 times, it may be excessive, but geez, it must have been like something from an Arnie movie. Adrenalin etc and watching this guy just keep on getting up after even the 3rd shot? You wouldn't be thinking too clear. Sounds like panic shooting.
:crack:
 
I intended to reply to this thread again a couple of weeks ago but I forgot about it and it dropped a few pages. Last night's arrests reminded me of it again.

First of all, Angela Harlem is on to somehing regarding the 5 shots; I have often heard from friends in law enforcement that drunk/stoned/high criminals do have something of an "invincibility" factor; much like how your senses are numbed at the dentist office when having cavities filled (it would hurt like hell if not), people under the influence are similarly numbed and often under delusions of grandeur as well. It is very likely that it REQUIRED 5 shots to put this jackass down; or else he would have continued coming after the newspaper man and the store clerk.

Now, on to what happened last night: we are hearing down here in Alabama that one or both of the suspects in the Maryland/D.C./Virginia shootings robbed a liquor store in Montgomery, Alabama back in September, and in the process killed one clerk and wounded another. Now I realize that we need to be sensitive to the needs, feelings, and safety of violent armed robbers, but I personally almost wish that one of the clerks at the liquor store in Montgomery had been armed and blown these two guys' faces off. If so, it is possible that none of the other shootings would occur.

Obvioulsy, most violent armed robbers are not going to go out on a serial killing spree (as far as we know) after their conquests, but I would wager this: they WILL go and rob/kill/rape again, because they will get away. Why did the convenience store clerk and newspaper delivery man carry weapons? Because they knew that their occupations made them targets of violent armed robbers; they did not WANT to be killed; many convenience store clerks in the Birmingham area have been arming themselves in the last few years because MANY of them are robbed by violent armed robbers, and TOO OFTEN, the clerks are killed JUST SO THAT NO ONE WILL LIVE TO TESTIFY.

Violent criminals think that they can get away with anything. I don't think they should enjoy that comfort.

~U2Alabama
 
Back
Top Bottom