Yep. I don’t quite disbelieve it, but it seems a little ... off.

In more than one way.

Assuming the basic facts aren’t inventions, odds are it’s drug-related and it’s coming across as bogus because some of the narrative is altered or embellished in order to not self-implicate.

The story itself?  Maybe, maybe not.  Strange things happen everywhere, sure. 

What will be fishy is the degree to which this will become the sine qua non of reasons why all coeds should be armed at all times - regardless of the fact that home invasions using a weapon are vastly less prevalent than suicides using a convenient gun in an age group where mental illnesses manifest.

In otherwords, constructed or real, this will become ANECDATA.  That anecdata will be far fishier than any story it is based on - notice that story is singular.

I’m absolutely certain that there’s a lot more to this story about to come out.

I’m not sure *what* will come out. But there’s more to this story.

“Apparently, his intent was to rape and murder us all,” said student Charles Bailey.

Um?  It all sounds really suspect.

I am not surprised by either the racist commentary or the holes in the story.

There’s a dead person and a wounded woman.  The story will come out, eventually, and yeah, it almost certainly does have something to do with a drug deal.

Never mind plausibility (it sounds a bit off, but that may just be bad writing), what about the woman who got shot “several time” in the crossfire, whom the writer is very careful not to mention until all the heroics have been well established? Score another one for amateur marksmen being as much of a menace as that which they supposedly combat.

...well, it’s not impossible.  Remember Richard Speck.  But yeah, it doesn’t quite smell right.  I’m with preying mantis and Ms. Kate.

“Getting ready to rape his girlfriend”

Um ... that sounds pretty odd.  Was he praying to a rape god or performing some well-known masked man pre-rape ritual?

I wonder if the students didn’t have some earlier contact with these masked intruders that will explain some of this.  Most robbers aren’t interested in homes full of people unless they have a flamethrower and a grudge to settle with their ex-wife’s family.

One of the intruders who got shot and ran away was heard by a neighbor yelling “Somebody please help! Call the police!”?  That doesn’t seem quite right to me—he breaks into a house, holds people at gunpoint intending to rape and murder them all, and when he gets shot at he runs out yelling for someone to call the police?  Why exactly would he want the police to show up after he’s just made a failed attempt at raping and murdering a house full of people?

I defer judgment until the full story comes out and the Law & Order episode based on this incident is broadcast.

It carries a whiff of BS, yes. But c’mon, Jesse, this is a report from Channel 2 Action (Action! ACTION!) News reporter Tom Jones. You can trust his elite reporting skills, just as you can trust the anchor that promoed the story with something like: “Does an armed college student make for a safe college student? Find out at 11 after CSI: Miami”

I go with Preying Mantis’ theory—I strongly suspect the original intent of the gunmen was to sell some grossly over-priced weed and pills to a bunch of college students, who balked at the cost.

I agree, something is off. I think it is a good guess that there is more going on here that implicates the “heroes” in some kind of complicity. Drug deal might be a good guess. But something more to this story and they are hiding.

I wish we had decent journalism in this country.

what about the woman who got shot “several time” in the crossfire, whom the writer is very careful not to mention until all the heroics have been well established?

Hey, this is Action News as in “Action Hero,” not Action News as in “Take practical Action on serious issues like firearms training.” There’s no ratings boost in the latter.

Did you read the comments on that site? Whoa! The racists are out in full force on this one.

“OK, I’ve clearly been out of college way too long. The drug-deal-gone-wrong angle completely didn’t occur to me.”

It’s not really a college thing such as a home-invasion thing.  It’s not exactly a popular crime except where it intersects with either domestic violence or drug traffic of some type.  Since it’s not “psycho ex-boyfriend tries to mow down local woman, party-goers”—and the victims don’t seem to be obviously either particularly wealthy or particularly vulnerable—the drug thing seems fairly likely.  It would also produce witnesses/victims who are trying to walk the line between accounting for a crime committed against them while not being brought up on separate charges themselves, which tends to result in all sorts of wonky testimony.

A few weeks ago, my son was supposed to be at a party, but instead he and his buddies walked down to the arcade.  Then he called me in a panic, and said he’d dropped his wallet, but right as he was getting ready to pick it up, a robber (yes!  he said “robber!”) picked it up and ran away.  He said they’d been chasing him for blocks, and they finally had to give up.

I said, “You made that up.  I don’t believe it for a minute.  You lost it, didn’t you?”

This story reminds me of that one.

This just sounds too scripted.  It’s right out of an episode of Medium.  Then again, maybe it’s accurate, and the gunmen were the ones who thought they were in a crime drama.

If it was a drug buy gone bad, I’d imagine the dealers pulled their pistols and tried to intimidate the students with some TV-grade tough talk to go along with the weapons. “We came all the way out here and you don’t want to pay? You’re buying this stuff one way or another.” etc.

Assuming the basic facts aren’t inventions, odds are it’s drug-related and it’s coming across as bogus because some of the narrative is altered or embellished in order to not self-implicate.

I do wonder whether that whiff isn’t just because there was a gun in a backpack, unless the concealed carry documents were all present and correct.

On the other hand, the full enthusiasm with which Confederate Yankee, Michelle Malkin, Jawa Report et al. have embraced this tell me that the most likely result is a complete clusterfuck of felony charges and humiliation.

“One female student was shot several times during the crossfire. She is expected to make a full recovery.”

This bit being tucked away at the end screams to me that Action! News! Tom! Jones! is trying to tell us a just so story.

Whether he twisted any of the underlying facts in the telling, I have no idea, but it certainly is an unconventional way to write a hard news story (I’m a newspaper guy) by stashing a woman with multiple gunshot wounds down at the end where one’s email contact line and boilerplate about police saying the case remains under investigation usually go. But he’s a TV reporter, so spelling most of the words right and doing so in complete sentences are pretty triumph. (Again, newspaper guy with newspaper prejudices)

The whole one guy is going to hold 19 people at gunpoint while the other guy rapes one seems bizarre to the point of unbelievability, but this is America, after all. People who’d at least think of doing it seem to exist.

The fact that it was the guy who opened fire’s girlfriend about to be raped seems Hollywoodish, too, but again, strange world, full of strange people.

“Somebody please help! Call the police!”?

That’s the part that REALLY got me doubting things. Naturally, the right-wingers are using it as a hilarious “criminal got what was coming to him” borderline racist taunt.

(They all seem to be using the word “po-po.” I’m sure it’s a coincidence that the alleged perp is African-American and that they’re choosing that word…)

A sketchy story based on an interview with a single person?  Sounds perfectly trustworthy to me!

The thing that gets me, is that after the shots were fired where the men were, why wasn’t the man guarding the women either running away or ready to shoot back? The intruders were probably invited into the house at the beginning and then something went wrong.

The thing that gets me, is that after the shots were fired where the men were, why wasn’t the man guarding the women either running away or ready to shoot back?

Well, after the “bullet-counting” excercise he was apparently focused on unzipping his fly with one hand while he held his weapon on the (multiple) women with the other hand. Or, y’know, something…

The girlfriend got shot multiple times? How about somebody tried to defend her from the asshole boyfriend and got shot? It’s not like guns and assholes don’t go together.

Bingo, ginmar. And even if it’s not that specific scenario, two other possibilities exist: They put her in danger by shooting the first guy in the one room while she was alone with an unarmed gunman, or the boyfriend opened fire at a guy jumping out the window while his girlfriend was in the line of fire.

Under any of the possible explanations, she wasn’t exactly first in anyone’s mind, up to and including the reporter reporting the story.

I have no idea what the real story is. But this isn’t it. Drug-deal-gone-bad is most likely, I would say.

The motive for the invasion seems really questionable to me.  This isn’t rapists usually behave in the real world, only in movies and video games.  Even though acquaintance rape is the most common type, this story plays on the fears people have about stranger-rape.  In reality, rapists rarely target large groups, especially with men in them.  How did this guy know that the intruders were planning to rape and kill everyone?  Does that “everyone” include the guys too?  If the motive had been rape, it’s more likely that they would have just killed the men right away, unless this is supposed to make them seem gay on top of being masked armed robbers.

Anyway, the whole thing seems like some macho hero fantasy to me.  Some guy tried to steal this other guy’s property, and that made him mad because that woman’s sex should belong only to him since he already claimed her.  So he whipped out his macho, manly <strike>cock</strike> gun, which was more powerful and effective than the intruder’s, and sent the intruder running away in shame.  It also makes it look like he was so romantic by saving the helpless princess from the dragon, and she will owe him lots of sex for that, further cementing his claim on her sexual organs.

One of the intruders who got shot and ran away was heard by a neighbor yelling “Somebody please help! Call the police!”?  That doesn’t seem quite right to me—he breaks into a house, holds people at gunpoint intending to rape and murder them all, and when he gets shot at he runs out yelling for someone to call the police?  Why exactly would he want the police to show up after he’s just made a failed attempt at raping and murdering a house full of people?

While I am loathe to be on the opposite page of Raging Red, I do posit a fairly straightforward explanation: a criminal who will want no police present whilst he engages in his chosen trade may, just may, have a different preference when he is shot, dying and knows it. 

As for the story itself, it both does and doesn’t hold water.  While the odds are against it, the fact remains that in a heavily armed nation of 300 million with a widespread crime problem one is, occasionally, going to have a crime story that sounds wildly improbable.  It might actually be as ludicrous as it sounds.

I defer to ginmar regarding the on-the-ground realities of what happens when bullets start flying.  But whatever the reality of this odd case it isn’t improbable that the wounded girl stood up or ran into the line of fire in wholly understandable panic.  (It’s more probable that the student shooter went “rock and roll” at the target and she got shot by all those inconvenient off-target bullets.)

I read the short article in the Atlanta Journal and it didn’t illuminate things much.  When the men and women are separated that is not a good sign.

What a shitty reporter.  How did he know she was about to be raped?  Had the thug torn her clothes?  It doesn’t matter much, you don’t need much of an excuse to shoot an armed home invader, especially in Georgia.

But if he was going to rape did he assume the other women would quitely watch and not boink him on the head with a lamp or some such?  Dunno.  Hey reporter; listen close:  Who, What, When, Where and Why!.

The only things that are missing is the breaker-inners didn’t say “praise Allah!  We shall gay marry you all!”

Oh wait, and the gunman that shot back must have yelled “yippe-ki-yay motherfucker!” before he started shooting.

Maybe the invaders watch a lot of TV. But it doesn’t make sense. Home invasions are performed to get a lot of cash money, which college students seldom have. The invaders might have been stoned out of their minds,  and that’s why they formed this grandiose plan.

The story is also just badly written.  I guess Action! News! can’t afford copyeditors.

Police said a fellow student shot and killed one of two masked me who burst into an apartment.

Okay.  That’s just embarrassing.

“Apparently the guy was getting ready to rape his girlfriend. So he told the girls to get down and he started shooting. The guy jumped out of the window,” said Bailey.

Whose girlfriend?  The gunman’s girlfriend?

The neighbor said she believes it was Lavant, who was found dead near his apartment, only one building away.

Whose apartment?  The neighbor’s apartment?  Lavant’s apartment?  How stupid/lazy a rapist/murderer do you have to be to attack people who live one building over?

Just a bit of OT on the notion of “too theatre to be real”.

Many of you may have seen the film A Bridge Too Far.  In it is a British officer who strolls around the battlefield with a brolly, who dies heroically.  The film-makers couldn’t put in what really happened because nobody would have believed it:
The Padre of the Paras was pinned down by enemy fire and looked up to see this officer standing there with the umbrella open.  The officer (Maj. Digby Thatham-Warter, if one can believe the name!)  says, “can I offer you a walk across the square, Padre?”  The stunned sky pilot says, “that umbrella isn’t going to do you a bit of good, you know!”, causing the shocked major to say, “my goodness, Padre, what if it rains????” *

* - Done from memory; my copy of the book is in storage.

I’m not saying that I believe this student hero story.  I’m just cognizant enough of the weirdness of reality to concede at least the possibility that it was so Drama.  Odds are wildly against, but it ain’t impossible.

In addition to the weirdness mentioned above, this part struck me as a bit odd

“The neighbor said she believes it was Lavant, who was found dead near his apartment, only one building away.”

So these guys planned on raping and killing a bunch of people, and then walking back to their apartment… one building away?  I wouldn’t entirely discount the possibilty these were some Columbine style sociopaths looking to kill someone, anyone, but that’s just illogical.  Even if they didn’t intend to “kill” everyone, who robs their neighbor?  It’s not like a mask is some foolproof disguise kit… particularly when you live next door to the person.  The odds of this being a drug-deal gone bad between neighbors is extremely high.

TF79, don’t expect a lot of logic from some criminals.  If you’ve spent any amount of time around criminal courts then you know that a disturbingly large amount of them are this stupid, linear and, um, rather deficient in the intelligent planning department.

http://pandagon.net/index.php/site/comments/i_do_not_want_my_whopper_to_get_capped/

I’m a little confused as well.  There are 2 masked gunmen.  One is holding all the men in one room.  the other is holding all the women in another.

The gunman holding the women is going to rape them all.  He is, in fact, about to start raping someone when our vigilante enters guns ablazing.

How exactly does that work?

How does a gunman manage to rape one woman while still holding the others at bay?  I suppose he could have held the gun to her head and threatened to kill her if anyone moved, but still, one man vs. several women while his accomplice is watching all the men and not raping anyone?  And all the women are waiting patiently for their turn to be raped?

Again, it would be nice if there were real journalists in the country.

That story is so atrociously written, it’s really hard to tell what actually happened. A lot of it sounds phony, but that could be the result of the extremely poor writing as much as anything.

I have to question why a news report on a shooting death sounds like it was written as a press release by the victims. Following established news protocol, the info about the injured girl should not be a throwaway line at the end, and the focus of the entire thing should be the shooting, not the dead guy’s alleged intentions. I just can’t tell if the problems are because the story is hinky or because the reporter is more interested in pushing the “More guns!!!!!!!” angle than actually reporting.

Yeah, doesn’t a story like this start out, “1 dead and 2 injured in rape-party shoot-out”?

Seeker6079:

My favorite improbable but true story, is the bank robber who wrote the hold-up note on one of his own deposit splips and wondered why the cops were waiting for him when he got home.

Most criminals have not taken logic 101.

As long as we’re playing the reverse-engineering game… Sounds like a drug deal but I kind of doubt it was because the guests didn’t want to pay for party supplies. Drug dealers don’t usually threaten to shoot their retail customers. And why did the college student have the gun in his backpack in the first place. Sounds to me like this was a wholesale transaction gone bad. College kid dealer isn’t paying his suppliers, drama ensues.

Fair enough, I haven’t spent a lot of time around criminal courts.  But I have been around drug deals even between friends that have gotten edgy.  So if the two options are between a hollywood shootout between brave college kids and scary invaders who decided to randomly rape and murder their poor neighbors, or a drug deal between neighbors in an apartment complex… I’d much rather place a bet on the latter.  Not only because the story sounds wonky, but also because statistically it’s a hell of a lot more likely.

When they catch the second suspect, it’s possible he’ll say “Yes, we broke into a random neighbor’s house, found 10 people inside and decided to rape and kill everyone, and then head home next door for a taco,”  or more likely he’ll say that they went there to sell them some weed and something (argument over price or quality, or someone was getting frisky with someone else’s gal) went down.

And then, there’s this:

COLLEGE PARK, Ga.—A group of college students said they are lucky to be alive and they’re thanking the quick-thinking of one of their own. Police said a fellow student shot and killed one of two masked me who burst into an apartment.

Was the author one of the two masked men, and through a Freudian typing error, confessed to the break-in?

Magis: Yeah, that’s a good one.  I rather like the guy who tried to rob a bank during the lunch break .... on a federal payday .... in the same block as the FBI field office.  Nothing like having a couple dozen feebs easy to hand in a moment like that.

btw, Lindsay has the most reasonable and likely explanation so far.

What is this “criminals are stupid” bananas?

The stupid ones are the ones you see in papers because they get caught. Tally up all the newspaper articles that read “police are still seeking a suspect” - those are the smart criminals.

As for the news story, it’s horrible. It’s all based on the testimony of one, seemingly very weird, witness. And yeah I was alarmed when I saw that a girl was shot multiple times at the very tail end of the story.

What weird business. I think it’s going to be another instance of conservatives latching onto a story that turns out to be complete bullshit.

While I am loathe to be on the opposite page of Raging Red, I do posit a fairly straightforward explanation: a criminal who will want no police present whilst he engages in his chosen trade may, just may, have a different preference when he is shot, dying and knows it.

But hey, don’t all dangerous criminals go to a safe house to get fixed up by a conspiratorial doctor when they get shot?  Or have I seen too many movies as well?

TF79… Yeah, I’m definitely with you on the probability issue; you and Lindsay B at 2:24 probably have it nailed.

How does a gunman manage to rape one woman while still holding the others at bay?  I suppose he could have held the gun to her head and threatened to kill her if anyone moved, but still, one man vs. several women while his accomplice is watching all the men and not raping anyone?  And all the women are waiting patiently for their turn to be raped?

Yes, this exactly why I got the idea of some rescue-the-princess fantasy.  I guess we are supposed to just assume that the women were completely incapable of defending themselves against a rapist even though they outnumbered him, and they needed some manly man to rescue them with his big blazing gun.  The story is really pushing the men-defending-helpless-women angle as much as the more guns angle.  That’s also why the injured woman would be mentioned as an afterthought.

How does a gunman manage to rape one woman while still holding the others at bay?

Well, Richard Speck kept his gun close to hand and tied them all up (all the while playing the “I’m not going to hurt you, I just want money” game) before he got down to the raping and killing.  The fact that there’s no hint of that in this story is either another sign that something is off, or a sign that the home invaders were really, really stupid.

Raging Red, I have no idea whether or not you’ve seen too many movies.  All I know is that you’ve never invited me to any.  (Pouts Pouts Pouts!)

Seriously, it may have something to do with necessity.  If he’s badly hurt, and can barely crawl (he was found not far from the scene, remember), he would probably been desperate to have the cops arrive and save him.  I’ve read the memoirs of wounded soldiers who called out to be picked up by the other side’s stretcher-bearers, so it is probably a normal fear of a person who thinks they’re dying.

Everything about that story is very strange. But it might have just been written very badly. There’s no explanation for the young woman being shot repeatedly. There’s no reason for a criminal to be screaming “Call the police!” It doesn’t make any sense.

who robs their neighbor?

Actually, if you count burglary, a lot of people.  We had a lot of break-ins that stopped when one of the young neighbor men was locked up.

I hope a full investigation wilol examine if the civil rights of the alleged invaders were violated.
They might have been victims of unexamined privilege or something worse.

Congrats to faiimuden!  First troll to arrive!

Seraph, get a grip.  He was the 57th comment.  Slow!  Unacceptable!

“Apparently, his intent was to rape and murder us all,” said student Charles Bailey.

A couple of things:

1) Charles Bailey says “apparently” alot, even though he was there.

2) Were the 2 intruders smacking their lips at the men, and saying things, like, “As soon as we’re done with all these women, you guys better be naked, because we ain’t leavin’ your fine asses untapped!”

I can understand Mr. Bailey’s pain. Most gun owners live in constant fear of being forced to watch all of the women in their life get raped, and then be sodomized, themselves, afterwards. Whenever in a crowd, the gun-owner can feel criminal eyes all over his body, sizing him up for his ultimate sodomizing.

Perhaps it isn’t a gun they need.

2) Were the 2 intruders smacking their lips at the men, and saying things, like, “As soon as we’re done with all these women, you guys better be naked, because we ain’t leavin’ your fine asses untapped!”

Robbing, raping and murdering an entire room full of people does seem pretty… ambitious.

“...you guys better be naked, because we ain’t leavin’ your fine asses untapped!”

“Wow, this is just like Bible camp!  Except that I’m not naked and pretending I’m somewhere else.”

Robbing, raping and murdering an entire room full of people does seem pretty… ambitious.

Perhaps they shouted EXCELSIOR! as they did so?

Maybe it was just me, but the article had “crime of passion” (gawd, I hate that term) written all over it. Particularly the way they tucked the “female student was shot several times” at the end.

Seraph, get a grip.  He was the 57th comment.  Slow!  Unacceptable!

True.  I wonder where they all are?  Over at friendlier blogs, celebrating the dead n*gger and the wounded bitch, perhaps?

Buying these, perhaps?
http://www.amazon.com/dp/B000RIV6A8/ref=asc_df_B000RIV6A8787678?smid=A1LDE1S76N6C2Z&tag=shopzilla_rev_76-20&linkCode=asn

“True.  I wonder where they all are?  Over at friendlier blogs, celebrating the dead n*gger and the wounded bitch, perhaps?”

They’re posting their “comments” on the news website.  shudder

“As soon as we’re done with all these women, you guys better be naked, because we ain’t leavin’ your fine asses untapped!”

Yes, but even more “ghetto” and with a lisp. Duh. :p And maybe a shout-out to Obama.

“Apparently the guy was getting ready to rape his girlfriend. So he told the girls to get down and he started shooting. The guy jumped out of the window,” said Bailey.

Can we *please* get some explanatory parentheses inserted in this, Mr. reporter? As far as I can tell the invader’s girlfriend was there and he told her to get down as a crazy college student attacked them with a gun… then someone jumped out a window. Or he intended to rape someone therefore told the girls to get down while he shot at someone else…? Writing fail.

One female student was shot several times during the crossfire.

That is the most passive voice ever. It’s like an accident report that goes “Drinks were had. I tried to turn but the tree swerved back in front of my car…”

Honestly, Jesse, you underreact.  If I saw TWO MASKED MEs (!) coming at me in my own home, I’d wish I had a gun to shred those doppelgangers into a million bitty orts.

/typos are fun and—in case anyone’s thick—so’s kiddin’ around

I also feel like plans for two guys to rape an entire room full of people deserves a stamina joke… that’s like, 5.5 rapes each within the space of 10 minutes? I don’t even know. Major bullshit alert on the whole thing.

I also feel like plans for two guys to rape an entire room full of people deserves a stamina joke… that’s like, 5.5 rapes each within the space of 10 minutes?

Another typo. Seeing as they’re black, Mr. Bailey thought they were going to RAP to them, and since they hate rap, one if the white men started shooting.

Honestly, Jesse, you underreact.  If I saw TWO MASKED MEs (!) coming at me in my own home, I’d wish I had a gun to shred those doppelgangers into a million bitty orts.

I am literally crying in my cubicle, right now.

thanks

Just a thought - did the masked men carve a backwards B into anyone’s face?

I can understand Mr. Bailey’s pain. Most gun owners live in constant fear of being forced to watch all of the women in their life get raped, and then be sodomized, themselves, afterwards. Whenever in a crowd, the gun-owner can feel criminal eyes all over his body, sizing him up for his ultimate sodomizing.

Personal knowlege/experience?

P.S.
Mr. Bailey was not the gun owner/shooter.

Definitely something weird in the story.  Either it’s a drug deal that went bad on the spot, or a drug deal that went bad a few days or weeks before and the other parties came back for money or revenge.

And while people rob their neighbors all the time, they generally don’t do it face-to-face.  It’s more breaking into your apartment or storage space when you’re not around.  Have I mentioned that my sister-in-law’s boyfriend is back in jail for doing this, and that he was apparently having their 14-year-old son help him haul things away?  And yet he’ll be living with her again as soon as he gets out of jail—in her new apartment, of course, since her current apartment building got an injunction against him coming back onto the property.

Magis -

Personal knowlege/experience?

You ever get into a message board argument with a gun-owner? “What if a [insert unappealing minority here] was raping your wife?” Usually ends up sandwiched between “Gun laws don’t work” and “I’ll shoot anyone who tries to de-gun me” on their descent from the 2 existing quasi-logical arguments to outright threats.

Given the bad writing and sourcing, all we really seem to know is that a guy was shot and died, and a woman was shot and didn’t die. I could as easily go with the complete-fabrication version where the ostensible masked attackers are random visitors, one of the complainants goes wild with a gun for no good reason and threatens/cajoles the rest of the partygoers into supporting a story that might not see a lot of careful investigation.

This is really weird: The Atlanta Journal Constitution is reporting that police think the shooting was connected to another attack on a college student.

No, my mistake, disregard that last link. The AJC story is about different attacks on college students Georgia.

And all the women are waiting patiently for their turn to be raped?

I don’t think that’s really that improbable.  I’ve heard cases of a single armed rapist attacking a group of women and none of the women fought back.  Fear paralyzes, and guns are dangerous, even (or especially) if the gunman is outnumbered.

I think you’re confused, Lindsay.  Those were two cases involving three black men committing armed robbery in parking garages, one against a single male, one against a male-female couple.  That’s a reasonable connection to make.

They make no mention of two black men invading a house party.

Tom Jones would tell you that it’s not unusual for something to go down this way.

C’mon, 90 comments and I’m the only one on this?

You’re right, I was confused. Disregard that AJC link, above.

norbizness: damn you.
I now have that tune running through my head.

(Bravo, btw.)

norbizness -

C’mon, 90 comments and I’m the only one on this?

I was trying to work in a Henry Fielding novel angle, myself. I’m only halfway through chapter 1, and I’ve got nothing.

Lindsay:

Sounds to me like this was a wholesale transaction gone bad.

Yup. I can’t be the only one having Pulp Fiction flashbacks, can I?

I am sort of wondering if the guy didn’t walk in on his “girlfriend” with another guy and he started shooting.  That would explain why she got shot multiple times and the weirdness of the whole story.

Yup. I can’t be the only one having Pulp Fiction flashbacks, can I?

Big Kahuna Burger is a tasty motherfucking burger.

Does this story seem a little bit fishy to anyone else?

Fishy?  Of course not.  That would be like suspecting one of those Random-Black-Guy-Killed-My-Wife-No-Really stories, and those always turn out to be true.

I think the story is so badly written I cannot even begin to tell what happened.

But like someone pointed out upthread, there are some dumb criminals out there.  The ones we catch.

And wrt resisting an armed person, the problem is that most people are unwilling to rush the person, even though you’re very likely to do it and survive if you have a bit of help.  Not that I like pointing to Texas for anything (except for as an example of all the things that can go wrong with a criminal justice system) but a school shooter in Texas was taking down without killing anyone by a few football players.

ARgh.  “taken” down.

Fishy?  Of course not.  That would be like suspecting one of those Random-Black-Guy-Killed-My-Wife-No-Really stories, and those always turn out to be true.

Well, if nothing else, we at least know that these two random black guys exist.

The Knoxville Unitarian Church shooter was also taken down in pretty short order by an unarmed congregant.

I see from Google’s blog search that this story is already being picked up by supporters of the campus concealed carry bills that are currently making their way through various state legislatures. Hmm.

In this article, it says

Authorities said one of the party-goers had a gun and fought back. He shot one of the suspects. That man was found dead in the street.

The other suspect escaped, but not before shooting the woman he tried to rape.

... which is a different story entirely to

That’s when one student grabbed a gun out of a backpack and shot at the invader who was watching the men. The gunman ran out of the apartment.

The student then ran to the room where the second gunman, identified by police as 23-year-old Calvin Lavant, was holding the women.

“Apparently the guy was getting ready to rape his girlfriend. So he told the girls to get down and he started shooting. The guy jumped out of the window,” said Bailey.

[...] Lavant [...] was found dead near his apartment, only one building away.

I wonder which (if either) is true.

Yup. I can’t be the only one having Pulp Fiction flashbacks, can I?

“WHAT does Calvin Lavant look like?”

Okay, we are getting dangerously close to being thrown off a fourth floor balcony for this discussion.  I am positive foot massages were involved in this crime.  Perhaps the story is off because one of the principals now has a speech impediment.

As soon as I posted that Pulp Fiction comment, I regretted it.

Not to be a party-pooper, but thereis a guy dead here, and a woman badly wounded.

Damn it!  norbiz you’ve earwormed me.  (well done, but still…)

It’s a hit (ouch) with the usual libertarian gun enthusiasts at the Atlanta LiveJournal community.

I just hope this doesn’t die down and fade away before we can get all of the information.  Remember Burger Hero?  What ever happened to him?

As soon as I posted that Pulp Fiction comment, I regretted it.

Well, you owe me some time for making my brain regurgitate Pulp Fiction quotes until I entered a near catatonic state.

Perhaps you were lured by the fact that one story has fiction in the title, and the other story likely has fictional bullshit in it.

“A group of college students said they are lucky to be alive and they’re thanking the quick-thinking of one of their own.”

It was the “one of their own” line that made me read the remainder of the article with skepticism.

Hmmm…what granfaloon were the “invaders” not invited to? College? Whiteness?

Of course it is, annejumps.  This fits their fantasies perfectly: two evil darkies invade a party full of Good Kids(tm), fixin’ to rob the men and rape the women, but a quick-thinking, pistol-packin’ hero among the men (all of the other men were helpless to protect themselves and their women!) fought back, killing one of the vermin and sending the other packing (wailing for help from the Authorities like the coward he is). 

Trust me when I say they’re typing all of those nasty, gleeful comments with one hand.

Yeah, and about that Tom Jones earworm. I have Danny DeVito in Mars Attacks saying “It ain’t unusual!” looping through my head right now, competing with the chorus from What’s New Pussycat.

So…thanks…thanks a lot.

I’m trying, Racymind. I’m trying real hard to be the shepherd. That’s all I’m saying.

Yup, Seraph. A few of those commenters seem to only show up and wank on posts that involve guns in some way.

I’m trying, Racymind. I’m trying real hard to be the shepherd. That’s all I’m saying

It’s not like you were just driving along and the gun just went off.  You shot this thread in the face.

Luckily, this place is full of Winston Wolfalikes.  The outlook is good.

No, seriously, does anyone know what happened to Burger Hero?  This is a frustrating thing: whenever there’s mass shooting, the “I Wish I’d Live In the Wild West” types argue that it would have been stopped in its tracks if everyone was packing iron.  Whenever a shootout breaks out - as it did here, as it did for Burger Hero - they wank over it and argue this proves their point, while we fret over the people who could have been - or were - caught in the crossfire. 

I, for one, want some fucking follow-up information so I can make a goddamn judgment.

The “counting bullets” part just makes no fucking sense at all.

I was trying to work in a Henry Fielding novel angle, myself. I’m only halfway through chapter 1, and I’ve got nothing.

@ JohnGor0:  Worst.  Fielding joke.  Ever.

You ever get into a message board argument with a gun-owner?

*giggle*

I are one and we have recently had some very good discussions that didn’t turn looney.

Actually, I wouldn’t mind patting the guy on the back if the facts justified it.  However, Jesse is right.  This story doesn’t ring true to me.  Something, besides bad writing, is wrong here.

Suppose…

Our ‘hero’ was carrying because he knew the two guys who broke in and that they broke in looking for him?  Hmmmm?  The story says the gunmen “burst” in (stock phrase).  Were there signs of forced entry?  How for come the cops didn’t get interviewed?  Nope, ain’t gonna bite on this one, nope, nosiree.

BTW

Here’s the “Burger Hero” followup, March 26, CBS

A Good Samaritan who shot and killed an armed robber at a Miami Burger King Tuesday is described by neighbors as a “gentle, artistic type.” Police on Thursday identified the man as 45-year-old John Landers of Hollywood. Landers was shot and critically wounded in the exchange with the armed robber who he shot dead.

His neighbor, Anna Nylander, told CBS4’s Gary Nelson that he is a photographer and writer. Landers has a website that features dozens of his photographs, mostly resume shots of models and aspiring models.

“He’s a stand up man. I’m not surprised,” Nylander said of her neighbor across the street. “He’s just that kind of guy.”

“He’s very creative,” Nylander said. “His wife is also very creative. She’s a drama teacher. They’re very nice people, always rescuing cats.”

The man Landers shot and killed was identified Thursday as 18-year-old Johnny Jean-Baptiste. Jean-Baptiste was already facing trial in an unrelated armed carjacking.

Police say Landers, who has a concealed weapons permit, acted within the law when he drew his gun and confronted the robber.

Nylander said Landers was known to sometimes carry a gun, recounting an episode where police were looking for a man on their street. “He mentioned at that time that the robber had better not come in his back yard,” she said.

Landers remained in very serious but stable condition Thursday at Jackson Memorial Hospital’s Ryder Trauma Center. A family friend told CBS4 News that he was “looking maybe just a little bit better today.”

Through a hospital spokesman Lander’s family declined to disclose the extent of his wounds, and said they did not wish to speak with reporters.
Police and fire rescue responded to a double shooting at the restaurant located on 54th Street and Biscayne Blvd. on Tuesday afternoon. When rescuers arrived they found Landers injured and transported him to Jackson Memorial Hospital. Lander had confronted the ski-mask wearing suspect with a gun of his own. Gun shots were exchanged between the two. No one else was injured in the shooting.

Magis -

Nothing really new there, except for a few nice character references.  Has he recovered?  What kind of shape is he in now?  Have any of the bystanders reported what happened - was Jean-Baptiste about to start shooting people, or was Mr. “Better Not Come in My back Yard” Landers packin’ heat and not interested in letting some punk push him around?

fixin’ to rob the men and rape the women

Which reminded me of Arlo Guthrie’s experience at the draft board, in Alice’s Restaurant:

And I, I walked over to the, to the bench there, and there is, Group W’s
where they put you if you may not be moral enough to join the army after
committing your special crime, and there was all kinds of mean nasty ugly
looking people on the bench there.  Mother rapers.  Father stabbers.  Mother stabbers.
Father rapers!  Father rapers sitting right there on the bench next to me!  And
they was mean and nasty and ugly and horrible crime-type guys sitting on the
bench next to me. And the meanest, ugliest, nastiest one, the meanest
father raper of them all, was coming over to me and he was mean ‘n’ ugly
‘n’ nasty ‘n’ horrible and all kind of things and he sat down next to me
and said, “Kid, whad’ya get?”  I said, “I didn’t get nothing, I had to pay
$50 and pick up the garbage.”  He said, “What were you arrested for, kid?”
And I said, “Littering.”  And they all moved away from me on the bench
there, and the hairy eyeball and all kinds of mean nasty things, till I
said, “And creating a nuisance.”  And they all came back, shook my hand,
and we had a great time on the bench, talkin about crime, mother stabbing,
father raping, all kinds of groovy things that we was talking about on the
bench.

Seraph:

That’s all I could find and was only a couple of days on from the incident.  I wish the hell newspapers would followup, not just on this but a lot of things.

Speaking of which, yeah….

Why didn’t the lazy ass reporters interview a couple of the bystanders? 

I believe in the last go around it was established that Mr. Jean-Baptise had pointed the gun at the counter people a couple of times but, alas, nothing was said about what he was doing at the moment Mr. Landers drew and fired.

“I wonder which (if either) is true.”

Yeah, that seems like a pretty huge mistake to make when reporting the story.  Version B has Lavant, the dead home-invader, being the attempted rapist and describes one of the women—not necessarily the woman he was attempting to rape—as injured “in the crossfire.”  Version A has the other suspect being the attempted rapist as well as the one responsible for shooting the injured woman, with the implication that it was deliberate.

Ho hum, another “just so story” to be trotted out by the gun nuts.  I dread even thinking about reading this thread.

But, for my contribution:

(1) In 1998, for every time a woman used a handgun to kill in self-defense, 101 women were murdered with a handgun.

(2) In 1998, for every time a woman used a handgun to kill an intimate acquaintance in self-defense, 83 woman were murdered by an intimate acquaintance with a handgun.

(3) In 1998, for every time a woman used a handgun to kill a stranger in self-defense, 302 woman were murdered with a handgun.

http://www.vpc.org/studies/myth.htm

Seraph,

Here’s a more lengthy follow-up, which I posted on the original thread, but it looks like posts at the end got deleted.  From ABC news

http://www.justnews.com/news/19022457/detail.html

In short, Mr. Landers did not shoot first, he returned fire:

A police report released Thursday described what happened inside a Burger King restaurant where one man was killed and another was injured on Tuesday.

According to the report, 18-year-old Johnny Jean-Baptiste entered the Burger King at 54th Street and Biscayne Boulevard and pointed a gun at workers behind the counter.

Customer John Landers, 45, who has a permit to carry a concealed weapon, told Jean-Baptiste to put down his weapon. According to the report, Jean-Baptiste refused and then began shooting at Landers, who returned fire.

Both men were shot several times. Jean-Baptiste died at the scene. Landers was rushed to a hospital with gunshot wounds to his chest, shoulder and forearm.

Detectives referred to Landers as a “Good Samaritan” in their police report.

Although Landers is an unknown hero to many, in his quiet Hollywood neighborhood, he is well known as an avid gardener, accomplished photographer and remodeling expert who has lovingly restored the historic home he shares with his wife.

MosesZD,

You don’t have to tell a bunch of feminists that women are far more often the victims of violence than those who safely use it in self-defense.  We already know that.

So, considering the fact that women own guns in small numbers, and women are disproportionately the victims rather than offenders of violent crime, please explain your point.

-Iz

PS—Self-defense, sadly, is the exception always.  Even men are not able to defend themselves from violent crime more than half of the time they are victimized.

I’m betting that the cops are getting diverging narratives from the people at this party, and Charles Bailey called the media to put out a story he thinks is good, and conveniently absolves all of them of any responsibility. He at least had the good sense to call a reporter who’s apparently too dumb to check with any other witnesses.

Yeah, but MosesZ, those were just wimmin, and at least men can defend their property from peopel with brown skin when there’s plenty of guns around!

You can’t make an omelet without breaking some eggs, Peacock. ANY chef’ll tell you that.

Still not a lot of new information, Ismone.  I really want to know how that guy’s doing now - full recovery?  Permanent injuries?

I’m not terribly surprised that Jean-Baptiste fired first.  Somebody had to, after all.  Nor am I particularly upset that he’s dead.  Armed robbery is a dangerous hobby.

The fact remains, though, that a lot of random lead flying around a crowded Burger King scares me a lot more than an armed robber getting away with the money in the till.  I fear the example Landers sets to the “Wish I’d Lived in the Wild West” crowd, and I really want to know whether his heroics were absolutely necessary (i.e. Baptiste was going to start shooting people) or if he escalated the situation by pulling his own weapon and trying to capture Baptise himself. 

For all the “Wild West” folks’ crowing about the bad guys getting theirs, I don’t really consider situations that end with dead perps and wounded innocents to have ended well.

I’m pro-gun and pro-CCW, but yes, this story sounds a bit too scripted.

I get the feeling that the gun used in self-defense was not a legally-owned firearm (whose gun was it? why was it in a backpack?) and maybe the the victims made the home invasion sound worse and more nefarious than a mere robbery so as to minimize any legal repercussions from that?

Or yeah, maybe it wasn’t a home invasion at all, maybe it was just an argument or a drug deal, but I’m not inclined to just assume that any group of young black folk are involved in drug dealing.

But generally speaking, those who legally carry firearms don’t just chuck them in a backpack and leave them lying around, they’re usually holstered and concealed. I also wonder why the guy in the “rape room” didn’t jump out the window when he heard the shooting coming from the other room ... why did he wait until the heroic avenger burst into the second room to get the fuck out of dodge?

I think there’s definitely more to this story, and I doubt that these are poster children for legal concealed carry—and I think those 2A defenders jumping all over this story immediately might end up with egg on their faces when we learn more.

Seraph

“I don’t really consider situations that end with dead perps and wounded innocents to have ended well.”

It’s certainly preferable to wounded perps and dead innocents, no? I generally consider any situation where the perps get it worse than those they tried to victimize to have ended well, relatively speaking.

On a sliding scale with “everyone dies” on the bad end of the spectrum and “the crime never is attempted in the first place” on the good end, a situation where a crime is attempted but doesn’t succeed is clearly towards the good end.

We don’t know that the perps were really going to rape the women and execute everyone. But it is entirely plausible and in case that it was their intention, I would certainly say this “ended well”—if we take this initial report at face value and assume it’s accurate.

But like I said in my other comment, I think there’s more to this story.

The cops have arrested Lavant’s alleged accomplice, so if there’s more to the story, it’s likely to come out at some point.

It’s certainly preferable to wounded perps and dead innocents, no?

But it’s not as good as “perp takes the money and escapes with no one hurt, picked up later by the cops”.  What I’d like to know is if that option was on the table before Landers and the college boy pulled their own weapons.  That’s the kind of information you need to evaluate the outcome in any kind of useful way. 

On a sliding scale with “everyone dies” on the bad end of the spectrum and “the crime never is attempted in the first place” on the good end, a situation where a crime is attempted but doesn’t succeed is clearly towards the good end.

...unless people are injured who wouldn’t have been if lead hadn’t started flying.  I rank “getting all innocents out unharmed” as a higher priority than “making sure the criminal doesn’t succeed or get away”.  And I count Landers as an innocent. 

We don’t know that the perps were really going to rape the women and execute everyone. But it is entirely plausible

Well, it’s possible...I brought up the example of Richard Speck myself…but I wouldn’t go so far as to say “plausible”.  The three crimes they were trying to pull really don’t fit together very well.  If they meant to rob everyone, they would’ve stayed together so they could control the crowd better.  If they meant to kill everyone, they could’ve just started shooting, as most mass-shooters do.  If rape was what they were after, it doesn’t really make sense to attack an entire house party with two guys.   

But like I said in my other comment, I think there’s more to this story

Now there’s something we agree on.

Seraph

But it’s not as good as “perp takes the money and escapes with no one hurt, picked up later by the cops”.  What I’d like to know is if that option was on the table before Landers and the college boy pulled their own weapons.  That’s the kind of information you need to evaluate the outcome in any kind of useful way.

Unfortunately, that is also the sort of information that you never, ever have—there is simply absolutely no way to know what a criminal intends to do to you. NEVER. Rarely do they state their intentions, as the perps in this story so conveniently did (allegedly). Some robberies go just the way you mentioned ... some victims comply 100% with their attacker’s demands and are still beaten, raped or killed despite that.

A recent example: http://tinyurl.com/92vnmp I’d take a dead perp over a stabbed and beaten grandmother any fucking day.

I can’t drive this point home enough: you never know what their intentions are. That being the case, you’re gambling with your life when you give a violent criminal the benefit of the doubt and hope that they only have the “best” intentions. Furthermore, it’s foolish. You can do so if you like, but I never will.

Unless you have some sort of prophetic skill that enables you to know what options are “on the table” for a violent criminal pointing a gun at you? Please share with the rest of us.

Aside from not knowing what an attackers intentions are (“just” to take your wallet?), you have to take into account unintended consequences, which even your attacker doesn’t know (so how could you?). Example: in 1991, a close friend of mine was killed by two drug dealers in broad daylight in downtown Ithaca, NY—the very progressive, relatively crime-free college town I grew up in. They hit him in the head with a pipe. They didn’t TRY to kill him—they knocked him out and when he fell his head hit the ground and he suffered severe head injuries. He was airlifted to a head trauma center, but he died. Their intention was not to kill him, but he’s still dead.

That and several other experiences I’ve had in my life with violent criminals has taught me that you never give them the benefit of the doubt. I will act as if my life is in direct danger anytime an armed individual attacks me (or a group of unarmed individuals). And if possible, I will react with the highest level of violence I am capable of—I will react with lethal force if possible.

...unless people are injured who wouldn’t have been if lead hadn’t started flying.

Sure. But like I said, there’s simply no way to know that ahead of time. You rarely have a large window of opportunity to react when someone is threatening your life. If you pass on that opportunity because you’re hoping for the best, you may end up dead. Taking that story at face value for the sake of argument, the girl who was wounded was going to be raped and then executed.

You don’t know that she wouldn’t have been injured, do you?

You can’t make an omelet without breaking some eggs, Peacock. ANY chef’ll tell you that.

But look what happened to the Cook!!!

A recent example: http://tinyurl.com/92vnmp I’d take a dead perp over a stabbed and beaten grandmother any fucking day.

Do please stop beating your strawman.  It’s falling apart.  I know that you have it somewhere in your head that I’m some bleeding-heart strawliberal who’s more worried about the perps than the innocent bystanders.  I’m not.  The best outcome (the one the police strive for) is one where everyone gets out alive, but I don’t have a lot of sympathy for violent criminals who run out of luck in their pursuit of their dangerous hobby.

No, the people I’m worried about are the people in that Burger King with Landers and Jean-Baptiste when all that lead started flying around.  I’m worried about that girl who got caught in the crossfire.  Even Landers. 

several other experiences I’ve had in my life with violent criminals has taught me that you never give them the benefit of the doubt. I will act as if my life is in direct danger anytime an armed individual attacks me (or a group of unarmed individuals). And if possible, I will react with the highest level of violence I am capable of—I will react with lethal force if possible.

...

Do you have any idea how frightening you sound?

If you ever have a chance to implement this much-considered plan of yours, I hope I’m not in the area.         

Taking that story at face value for the sake of argument, the girl who was wounded was going to be raped and then executed.

You don’t know that she wouldn’t have been injured, do you?

If I accept a story that I consider to be on a par with “A black man carved a reverse ‘B’ into my forehead” for the sake argument?  Sure, this was entirely justified and being wounded is better than being dead. 

In the real world?  All I know for sure is that she’s definitely injured now.

That and several other experiences I’ve had in my life with violent criminals has taught me that you never give them the benefit of the doubt. I will act as if my life is in direct danger anytime an armed individual attacks me (or a group of unarmed individuals). And if possible, I will react with the highest level of violence I am capable of—I will react with lethal force if possible.

Then you’re a psychopath and a criminal.

The law does not allow you to react with any level of violence you are capable of. You are legally limited to the minimum required to resolve the situation. If brandishing a weapon is enough to scare them off, you don’t get to open fire while they’re running.

  Taking that story at face value for the sake of argument, the girl who was wounded was going to be raped and then executed.

Let me read back something to you.

Unfortunately, that is also the sort of information that you never, ever have—there is simply absolutely no way to know what a criminal intends to do to you. NEVER.

Does not fucking mesh with

“Apparently, his intent was to rape and murder us all,” said student Charles Bailey.

So, either criminals are individual people into the hearts of which we cannot scry, or they are simply open books, their intentions of mayhem proudly displayed on their sleeves.

Please pick one boogieman and be consistent.

But far better still would be “would-be perp decides to stay home, play Xbox; everybody has a great day.” We have things like laws because they establish avenues of interaction that are regulated and safe. When someone breaks the law, they don’t only step outside those boundaries - they force their victims outside them, as well. When criminals decide to break the law, they’re responsible for the consequences, and those consequences include people feeling so threatened - justly, unjustly - that they take steps to defend themselves. When the law is being broken by a criminal, when others are being put at risk, all bets are off.

Yes, Chet.  As I stated in the initial post that seems to have set both you and Guav off, I have no particular sympathy for Jean-Baptiste, nor for the perpetrators of the college invasion (if, in fact, the story has any element of truth in it at all).  My concern is for the bystanders who wind up in a shooting gallery. 

I don’t have a problem with gun rights as such, though I don’t see the need for concealed carry - if the whole idea is to defend yourself, wouldn’t a clearly visible holster at your hip help prevent some confrotations from happening in the first place? - my problem is with the cowboy types who seem to think that the solution to armed robberies and Virginia-tech style massacres is more shootouts.  Quite frankly, the idea terrifies me.  NYC is a crowded place, and extra bullets flying through the air means that someone will get dead.

I had a friend who was raped in a home invasion: two cons, they held her two male roommates at gun point, robbed them, raped her.

However, the numbers weren’t quite the same, and it being New York City, none of victims had a gun.

The cons were caught and sent back to prison.

Seraph

Do please stop beating your strawman.

How is that a strawman? The point is that you never know when someone “just” intends to rob you. That’s not a strawman.

I know that you have it somewhere in your head that I’m some bleeding-heart strawliberal who’s more worried about the perps than the innocent bystanders.

Err, I’m a liberal too.

The best outcome (the one the police strive for) is one where everyone gets out alive

Sure ... but you have no way of knowing if that’s actually going to be the outcome if you comply.

No, the people I’m worried about are the people in that Burger King with Landers and Jean-Baptiste when all that lead started flying around.  I’m worried about that girl who got caught in the crossfire.  Even Landers.

I’m only talking about the story in the OP. I didn’t read all the comments, so you’re talking about something else entirely that I’m not aware of.

Do you have any idea how frightening you sound?

Do you understand that I could be dead right now? That the only reason I have these opinions is because I have literally had to fight two muggers larger than me in the middle of the night? Or because I have had my house burgled while I slept, or because I have had friends killed by violent criminals? Quite frankly, I don’t give a fuck how “frightening” I sound to people who’ve never been jumped by eight kids for no reason.

If you ever have a chance to implement this much-considered plan of yours, I hope I’m not in the area.

What a fucking ignorant comment. You make it sound as if getting attacked is my fantasy, so that I can be an action hero—when the reality is I only feel this way because of things that actually happened to me. I fucking hate fighting, and I haven’t been in one of these situations since 1995, and I hope to god I am never in one again. But I don’t carry or own a handgun, if that’s your concern. Not allowed to where I live.

If I accept a story that I consider to be on a par with “A black man carved a reverse ‘B’ into my forehead” for the sake argument?  Sure, this was entirely justified and being wounded is better than being dead.

And that’s all I was saying.

“The point is that you never know when someone “just” intends to rob you.”

...much better to shoot first, and ask questions later…or just skip the questions…

karpad

Then you’re a psychopath ...

I do not think that word means what you think it means.

The law does not allow you to react with any level of violence you are capable of.

It does if you have reason to believe that your life is in danger.

You are legally limited to the minimum required to resolve the situation.

I’m pretty sure this varies depending on where you live.

If brandishing a weapon is enough to scare them off, you don’t get to open fire while they’re running.

Of course not. But I don’t advocate such actions, and I don’t see where I said I did. I would react with lethal force (if I was able) if I felt my life was in danger. My life is certainly not in danger if someone’s running away from me.

And I don’t carry or own a handgun, so I’m not talking about firing at anyone—I wish I could just brandish a firearm and not have to actually physically engage my attacker.

Unfortunately, that is also the sort of information that you never, ever have—there is simply absolutely no way to know what a criminal intends to do to you. NEVER.
Does not fucking mesh with
“Apparently, his intent was to rape and murder us all,” said student Charles Bailey.

Your reading comprehensions leaves a little to be desired. My entire quote:

Unfortunately, that is also the sort of information that you never, ever have—there is simply absolutely no way to know what a criminal intends to do to you. NEVER. Rarely do they state their intentions, as the perps in this story so conveniently did (allegedly). Some robberies go just the way you mentioned ... some victims comply 100% with their attacker’s demands and are still beaten, raped or killed despite that.

(1) In 1998, for every time a woman used a handgun to kill in self-defense, 101 women were murdered with a handgun.
(2) In 1998, for every time a woman used a handgun to kill an intimate acquaintance in self-defense, 83 woman were murdered by an intimate acquaintance with a handgun.
(3) In 1998, for every time a woman used a handgun to kill a stranger in self-defense, 302 woman were murdered with a handgun.

I’m not sure how this stat helps anyone.  Guns are not going to be banned in this country.  Period.

Seraph

my problem is with the cowboy types who seem to think that the solution to armed robberies and Virginia-tech style massacres is more shootouts.  Quite frankly, the idea terrifies me.  NYC is a crowded place, and extra bullets flying through the air means that someone will get dead.

First of all, let me just say that gun owners don’t like being stereotyped as cowboy action-hero wannabes any more than you like being stereotyped a lilly-livered whiny liberal who values perps above innocents. Just keep that in mind.

I’m a liberal, and I live in NYC too—actually, I live in Jersey City and work in manhattan—and was born in Brooklyn, if any of that matters. Do not assume that because I believe in being prepared for self-defense that it means I actually want to have to defend myself; that I actually want shit like this to happen so that I can be a tough guy. I really, truly, honestly don’t. But I’ve never had any say whatsoever in it in the past—you don’t always get to control what happens to you. After some of the things I’ve been through, I’d have to be a complete fucking jackass to not be prepared to defend myself.

And look, the fact of the matter is that most states in the country allow concealed carry, and every time one of them passed the law, everyone warned how it was going to be the “wild west,” and how there would be shootouts over every little fender bender, and “blood would run in the streets” and people would be caught in the crossfire. It didn’t happen.

People do get caught in crossfire, but it is pretty much NEVER a legal carrier who shoots them—it’s generally “spray and pray” drug and gang related shootings where that happens.

Or yeah, maybe it wasn’t a home invasion at all, maybe it was just an argument or a drug deal, but I’m not inclined to just assume that any group of young black folk are involved in drug dealing.

Surely this isn’t “just any group of young black folk.” It’s ones who, you know, had guns, and ended up getting shot in some college kids’ apartment.

jlk7e

Surely this isn’t “just any group of young black folk.” It’s ones who, you know, had guns, and ended up getting shot in some college kids’ apartment.

I was referring to the college kids themselves—they too, appear to be black. I’m not sure if they had been preppy white kids if so many people would have speculated that it was a drug deal.

MikeEss

...much better to shoot first, and ask questions later…or just skip the questions…

When someone holds a knife to you or points a gun at you in the commission of a robbery, what the fuck other questions do you need to ask? They’ve effectively skipped the questions themselves—they are threatening your life. Reacting to that direct threat is not “shooting first.”

Guav:  “The point is that you never know when someone “just” intends to rob you.”

...hey, I’m just responding to your point here.  Sure, if they have a knife to your throat, they’re most likely up to no good.

But I think we can all agree that safety is paramount.  And waiting for somebody to pull a knife or a gun on you is too late. 

The next time some jerk cuts you off in traffic…BANG! 
Some “girl scouts” try to sell you some “cookies”...BANG! 
Neighbor won’t turn the music down when you asked…BANG!

After all, an armed society is…um, a society that’s armed…

MikeEss, Perhaps I’d find your sarcasm hilarious if I hadn’t actually been threatened with a knife during an attempted mugging.

“Perhaps I’d find your sarcasm hilarious if I hadn’t actually been threatened with a knife during an attempted mugging.”

...which I take it you lived through, right?  (just making sure…)

Did you shoot him/her to escape?  Or did you stab them?...

Yes, I lived through it—I sprayed one with pepper gas and stabbed the other one, if you must know.

And the entire thing was terrifying and horrifying and I desire nothing more than to never be put in such a situation ever again.

MikeEss, Perhaps I’d find your sarcasm hilarious if I hadn’t actually been threatened with a knife during an attempted mugging.

yes, it’s utterly impossible for anyone who has experienced violence to find horror at your outright glee at the idea of offing some criminals. Later lipservice be damned. you either have unacknowledged opinions regarding how wonderful it is for people to kill those wicked inscrutable criminals, or you seriously need to reconsider your phrasology.

You are the one who said flatly that you can’t know what criminals are planning. Well, that’s true. You can’t know what anyone is planning. You clearly would not condemn someone who shoots a burglar who has presented no arms, so give me a legitimate line between someone who might go and hurt you and deserves to be shot in the brainpan, and someone who might not be a threat to anyone who deserves to be spared.

I should hope the line is not a paper bag test.

“And the entire thing was terrifying and horrifying and I desire nothing more than to never be put in such a situation ever again.”

...which I can understand.  It’s traumatic.  I would not wish it on anyone.

OTOH, now that we’re not in that situation right now (and not faced with a fight/flight decision), can you honestly say that you can prevent another incident from happening to you by carrying a piece?...

To me, the sad example of the Taser comes to mind.  Well meaning people who are seeking to reduce shooting deaths by cops come up with a non-lethal device.  It’s marketed as an important law enforcement tool.  And then the law of unintended consequences steps up, and the next thing you know, cops are torturing (and killing) people with this “non-lethal” device meant to reduce violence and death.

If everyone carried a gun, I have no idea if the crime rate would go down…as least crimes like muggings, rapes, etc.  But I’m pretty confident that shootings in general (which are usually crimes) would rise dramatically.

It’s not clear that this would be a good trade off…

I’m not sure if they had been preppy white kids if so many people would have speculated that it was a drug deal.

Personally, I’ve never seen any demographic do more drugs than preppy white kids.

You are the one who said flatly that you can’t know what criminals are planning. Well, that’s true. You can’t know what anyone is planning. You clearly would not condemn someone who shoots a burglar who has presented no arms, so give me a legitimate line between someone who might go and hurt you and deserves to be shot in the brainpan, and someone who might not be a threat to anyone who deserves to be spared.

The issue is not whether you know what a criminal is planning; the issue is that you don’t know where the criminal will draw the line on the spectrum of crime. You already know he has trouble conforming his conduct to the law; you know he prioritizes his needs above his own; you already know he doesn’t care that much about you.

You can be fairly sure that a con man or a pickpocket is not trying to kill you: the one because he relies on your trust to fleece you, the other because he’s trying to get away undetected. A burglar who breaks into your home while you are there is not trying to be unobtrusive—perhaps because he plans to leave no witnesses.

Preview is my friend: you know he prioritizes his needs above your own.

I had a friend who was raped in a home invasion: two cons, they held her two male roommates at gun point, robbed them, raped her.

However, the numbers weren’t quite the same

That’s rather the point.  No one’s saying that home invasions don’t happen, or that rape isn’t done during them.  We’re just a little suspicious that two guys would invade a house party and proceed to act out the “darkies are coming to rape the women and rob the men” fantasy to the letter.

How is that a strawman? The point is that you never know when someone “just” intends to rob you. That’s not a strawman.

Spare me.  I knowand you know what you were doing with that “stabbed and beaten grandmother” line. 

Err, I’m a liberal too.

A lot of people come here and say that.  Generally as a prelude to concern trolling.  On the other hand, Jesse titled this post what he did because nothing starts an internal fight on this blog like guns.  I’ll wait and see.

You make it sound as if getting attacked is my fantasy, so that I can be an action hero

Actually, you make it sound like that.

First of all, let me just say that gun owners don’t like being stereotyped as cowboy action-hero wannabes any more than you like being stereotyped a lilly-livered whiny liberal who values perps above innocents. Just keep that in mind.

Which is why I’m not stereotyping them as such.  I’m referring to the actual bloggers and commenters I’ve read all over the internet who are gloating over the dead n*gger and holding this up as exhibit “A” for their argument that the best way to deal with violent crime is more shootouts.

I was referring to the college kids themselves—they too, appear to be black. I’m not sure if they had been preppy white kids if so many people would have speculated that it was a drug deal.

They are?  Like Lauren, I’d assumed it was a drug deal gone wrong because I thought they were preppy white kids.

Which is why I’m not stereotyping them as such.  I’m referring to the actual bloggers and commenters I’ve read all over the internet who are gloating over the dead n*gger and holding this up as exhibit “A” for their argument that the best way to deal with violent crime is more shootouts.

To elaborate, they’re not talking about their own experiences of victimization and saying “I wish I’d been able to…”, nor are they talking about how scared they were that one time they fought off an attacker.  They’re gloating about a “bad guy” getting his, wondering why the MSM doesn’t talk about it when the “good guys” win (thus proving that shootouts are the way to go), and snickering about the cowardice of the wounded accomplice who ran, calling for the “Po Po”.  These are not people who’ve been in your place, and they probably don’t have responsible attitudes about any guns they own.  Life is clearly an action movie for these people.

My remark at 10:41 was not a joke, btw.

<blockquote>I’m not sure if they had been preppy white kids if so many people would have speculated that it was a drug deal.

“Personally, I’ve never seen any demographic do more drugs than preppy white kids.”  - Lauren

“I’d assumed it was a drug deal gone wrong because I thought they were preppy white kids.” - Seraph<blockquote>

I’m with Seraph and Lauren on this one.  I just assumed it was white kids.  (Not the least reason: I find it difficult to picture a black university student walking around with a gun, knowing damned well that pretty near every cop is waiting to find an excuse to roust me.)

karpad

to find horror at your outright glee at the idea of offing some criminals. Later lipservice be damned. you either have unacknowledged opinions regarding how wonderful it is for people to kill those wicked inscrutable criminals, or you seriously need to reconsider your phrasology.

I’m sorry, but I do not think you know what “glee” or “wonderful” actually means.

This is what I said, “That and several other experiences I’ve had in my life with violent criminals has taught me that you never give them the benefit of the doubt. I will act as if my life is in direct danger anytime an armed individual attacks me (or a group of unarmed individuals). And if possible, I will react with the highest level of violence I am capable of—I will react with lethal force if possible.”

There is no glee or joy in that sentence, nor do I say anything is wonderful—I’m just telling you how I will react to an armed person attacks me. Yes, I’m cold about it and unapologetic. That’s quite a bit fucking different from glee and claiming that I think the shit is wonderful.

You clearly would not condemn someone who shoots a burglar who has presented no arms, so give me a legitimate line between someone who might go and hurt you and deserves to be shot in the brainpan

Well first of all, I think there’s a bit of a difference between being accosted on the street and in your home—I’ve been in several self-defense situations on the street, and only once did I feel my life was in jeopardy and act accordingly. When you’re on the street, you have more avenues of escape also, and more likelihood of witnesses and people who can help. When you’re in your home, that’s a different story—especially if you have children. Once someone invades your home, I feel that your life is inherently at risk. Personally, when I lived upstate I had a shotgun for home defense (after my apt was burgled as I slept). In the event of that happening again, I’d have announced myself and cocked the shotgun. If they fled, then great. If they advanced toward me, I’d fire the first shell, which was a beanbag round. Following the beanbag round was birdshot, then a slug. I don’t want to kill anyone, I just am not willing to put a home invader’s life above my own.

Seraph

We’re just a little suspicious that two guys would invade a house party and proceed to act out the “darkies are coming to rape the women and rob the men” fantasy to the letter.

Yeah, the story sounds like bullshit to me too, but it should be noted that, from I can gather, the students themselves are black as well. Watch the video in the link Jesse posted. At least the person they quoted in black. Maybe all his friends were white preppies though, I dunno.

I know and you know what you were doing with that “stabbed and beaten grandmother” line.

Well then please tell me. I don’t have any reason to hide my motivations in saying the things I say—I had originally looked for a story I saw recently about a man who was robbed—he complied completely with the robber, didn’t resist, gave them everything they asked for, and then they shot him anyway. I couldn’t find that, but came across the story I posted. I was illustrating how it’s not uncommon for robbers and burglars to physically harm their victims and try to kill them, even when they meet no resistance at all.

A lot of people come here and say that.  Generally as a prelude to concern trolling.

That’s nice. Jesse knows who I am—I’ve been reading Pandagon since 2003 or 2004, and he used to read my blog. I’m not a secret redneck posing as a liberal—not that it should matter one way or another.

Actually, you make it sound like that.

Why, because due to past experiences, I have had the audacity to take steps to defend myself and don’t apologize for it?

Gee, am I the only one who thought the drug deal hypothesis was based on the many ways this does not make sense unless it was a drug issue gone bad, and not on the unknown race/ethnicity of the students?

ginmar’s scenario (domestic violence) sounded quite possible to me. Sure crazy things happen when bullets fly, but if you were trying to protect someone you loved, would you really end up leaving them with multiple gunshot wounds?

“Gee, am I the only one who thought the drug deal hypothesis was based on the many ways this does not make sense unless it was a drug issue gone bad, and not on the unknown race/ethnicity of the students?”

I assumed the college students were white and would have assumed that the gunmen were white were it not for the way the reporter seemed to be spinning the incident and the makes-no-sense story being presented as if no one in Georgia would ever question it, both of which had a whiff of “scary brown folk strike again” to it.

“but if you were trying to protect someone you loved, would you really end up leaving them with multiple gunshot wounds?”

Even if you’re a really good shot on the range, in situations where you’re under stress, possibly still moving, etc., you’re likely going to be an average shot at best.  It’s one of the reasons you’re really, really not supposed to open fire unless you have to.  That having been said, one of the reports identified the unnamed accomplice as the attempted rapist and the person responsible for the bullets that wound up in the injured woman and the article linked in the OP said it happened “in the crossfire” with Lavant.  Until reporters can actually agree on who did what, I suppose it’s something of a moot point.

All I can say for sure is that there’s little sure here except that someone is dead and someone is wounded and that there needs to be a lot more explanation.

As for intent, home invasions happen.  Parties are targets since there’s booze, sometimes drugs, and lots of wallets and purses with cellphones and credit cards.  And there’s usually some violence against someone (to get the crowd to not be brave,) the occasional rape/sexual assault (because they can,) and the usual stuff that is associated with groups of young men acting out against others.  The reality is scary, but the stories that come out afterward are exaggerated scary stories that often boil down to some racist variant on the theme of “You can’t trust someone who is _______.”  The version I heard was anti-Samoan, which may or may not have something to do with Pulp Fiction.  But the teller’s brother’s smashed face was real.

As for the guns, I’ve given up on the idea that we really can do much about the proliferation of guns in this country.  That herd of horses left the barn, the corral, and the neighbor’s pasture long ago.  I tie gun rights with my advocacy of drug rights: let the responsible people do whatever the hell they want, within reason, while focusing on the criminals.  If we just could do spot checks on convicted felons to see if they had guns, this would be a safer world.  And if the police weren’t so busy keeping people from controlling their own minds and bodies, maybe they could concentrate on those seeking to harm other people without consent.  Wouldn’t that be something?

Not to mention how much crime and homicide in this country is a result of the drug game—legalization would do more to lower crime and homicide rates than gun control ever can.

Well then please tell me.

Please stop insulting my intelligence.  I know “You care more about the perps than the victims” when I hear it.  I know it’s very effective at slapping down less gun-friendly commenters in more gun-friendly forums, but you should be aware that here, where we’re a bit more evenly divided, it isn’t quite that easy to automatically discredit someone. 

That’s nice. Jesse knows who I am—I’ve been reading Pandagon since 2003 or 2004, and he used to read my blog. I’m not a secret redneck posing as a liberal—not that it should matter one way or another.

Rednecks usually prefer the direct confrontation route…come in, start yelling about murdering babies, freedom of religion (as an argument against gay marriage), and Obama’s birth certificate.  Concern trolls are more subtle. 

While you may be the exception, I generally consider a person who says “I’m a liberal, too” to be as trustworthy in that regard as a country that includes the word “democratic” in its name.

And while it’s true that whether you’re a “disguised redneck” or not shouldn’t have any bearing on your actual arguments, concern trolls, by definition, argue in bad faith. 

Why, because due to past experiences, I have had the audacity to take steps to defend myself and don’t apologize for it?

I’m not the only one saying you sound wayyyy too eager. 

Still, I must admit that you gained some credibility in my eyes when you started talking about your own experiences, rather than quoting news stories at me like I was too sheltered to know that the world is dangerous.  I still have only your word, but you really don’t sound like the action-movie worshippers.  They would never admit to fear.

Not to mention how much crime and homicide in this country is a result of the drug game—legalization would do more to lower crime and homicide rates than gun control ever can.

There is that.  Didn’t the repeal of Prohibition go a long way toward breaking the power of the Mafia?

MikeEss

can you honestly say that you can prevent another incident from happening to you by carrying a piece?

No. Of course not. I’ve never said any such thing, because I don’t believe it. If I carried a firearm, it would not make me any less or more likely to be targeted for a street crime—a firearm is not a magic talisman. I am inclined to believe, however, that in many situations, it would allow me to react to an attempted crime better than if I were unarmed (and no, not necessarily by killing anyone, likely not even firing the weapon). It depends on the situation, of course, and there are no guarantees in life.

If everyone carried a gun, I have no idea if the crime rate would go down…

But this is a straw man first, and secondly, such an event is as likely as me farting unicorns. Even in Vermont, which basically has no restriction on firearms whatsoever—you can buy a handgun with no permit and carry it around with no permit—most people do not own guns, and even less carry them. The fact of the matter is that not everybody wants guns—and that’s great. So aside from the fact that I don’t know a single person who advocates “everyone carrying a gun,” the only way to achieve that result would be by legally compelling people to carry a firearm at all times—and even then, many would not. It’s simply not a realistic scenario, and not one that I think anyone wants.

So would the crime rate go up or down? It’s a moot question, since it’s based on a fantasy. But I’m of the opinion that crime and homicide rates are affected mostly by cultural, social and economic trends, not firearm availability. Some places with high firearm ownership rates have low crime rates, some have high crime rates. And vice versa. This is true nationally and internationally—I have seen no evidence that leads me to believe that firearm availability significantly effects crime rates either positively or negatively.

Seraph

Please stop insulting my intelligence.  I know “You care more about the perps than the victims” when I hear it.

You obviously do not, because that was not my point in posting that link. I have already explained to you precisely why I did, and unless you have some compelling reason or evidence to just assume that I’m a fucking liar, I’d really appreciate it if you’d stop assuring me that you know what I was “really” doing. If I thought you cared more about perps than victims, I’d simply come right out and say so. I am convinced entirely that you do not believe that—you have plainly told me that you don’t feel that way, and I have no reason to think you’re anything but honest—so I’d appreciate it if you’d extend me the same courtesy and stop assigning “secret” motives where they don’t exist.

In regards to me being a ‘“fake liberal,” a “disguised redneck” or a “concern troll,” here are four recent journal entries of mine (I don’t update nearly as much as I used to years ago):

http://throwingstardna.livejournal.com/1042024.html
http://throwingstardna.livejournal.com/1030998.html
http://throwingstardna.livejournal.com/1037666.html
http://throwingstardna.livejournal.com/1041514.html

Now can you please stop questioning my motivations? Aside from it being annoying, it’s irrelevant and a distraction from the actual topic.

Dammit.  My office’s firewall won’t let me check the links.  I’ll have to do it later. 

If they do check out, all I can say in my defense is that many a troll has used your honest arguments in bad faith, and it’s entirely relevant to the discussion if someone is doing so.

If they do check out, all I can say in my defense is that many a troll has used your honest arguments in bad faith, and it’s entirely relevant to the discussion if someone is doing so.

And also that posts like this seem to bring them out of the woodwork.

Can you view screenshots posted on Flickr?

http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3556/3512494247_5704620db4_o.png
http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3370/3512494293_edf5193f1e_o.png
http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3596/3513301152_e222d04899_o.png
http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3378/3512494407_7e9f0da44a_o.png

Not to get too off-topic, but really, I don’t see why it should matter. If you make a compelling, legitimate argument, it doesn’t matter to me if you’re a liberal or a conservative—or even if you’re one pretending to be the other. Can’t an argument be judged on it’s merits, or lack thereof?

I mean, if you think my arguments are shit, would my being a liberal lend them more credence in your eyes? I don’t think it should.

Can you view screenshots posted on Flickr?

Yep.  That worked. 

Not to get too off-topic, but really, I don’t see why it should matter. If you make a compelling, legitimate argument, it doesn’t matter to me if you’re a liberal or a conservative—or even if you’re one pretending to be the other. Can’t an argument be judged on it’s merits, or lack thereof?

If you’re a liberal or conservative?  Sure, though I extend to liberals a benefit of the doubt that I don’t extend to conservatives (a bad habit, I admit - though the correction would be to stop extending benefit of the doubt to liberals, not to extend it to conservatives).  If you’re one pretending to be the other?  No.  If that’s the case, you’re a fucking liar who cannot be trusted to engage in an honest argument, and the best option is to simply point that out and refuse to engage with a bunch of compelling-sounding arguments of questionable legitimacy. 

That’s my experience.

Good stuff, by the way.  For the record, I don’t think Obama is particularly interested in restricting firearms, whether he can scrape together the political capital for it or not.

Fair enough. You can assume if they’re concealing what they’re about, that at least they perceive there is an advantage to that—it’s sketchy. On the other hand, you’ve admitted that you give liberals more leeway than conservatives—couldn’t pretending to be a liberal be a way to make sure that their arguments are given a fair hearing by people who might otherwise brush them off? It could go either way, couldn’t it? Anyway, regardless, I ain’t a conservative—not that I haven’t been considered that by people who think gun control a litmus test that enables you compartmentalize people into one of two categories.

Regarding Obama, while running for a seat in the Illinois Legislature in 1998, he indicated that he would support action to “ban the sale or transfer of all forms of semi-automatic weapons”—in practice, that would ban everything except revolvers and bolt-action rifles. More recently, he’s said that he supports a federal ban on concealed carry—despite the fact that 40 states already allow concealed carry with a license (and 2 don’t require any license)—and it’s no secret that he supports permanently reinstating the “assault weapons” ban.

I think it’s pretty plainly disprovable that he has no interest in “restricting firearms”—those are all pretty serious firearm restrictions. I just think he realizes it’s not politically feasible—he’s said as much. But I think he’d move towards that in a minute if he thought he could accomplish it. Which I don’t think he can, which is why I voted for him.

couldn’t pretending to be a liberal be a way to make sure that their arguments are given a fair hearing by people who might otherwise brush them off?

Theoretically, but I’ve never seen it.  Generally, they spend a few days struggling to keep the mask in place (though they tend to give themselves away with little wingnut writing habits like “Democrat Party”), then melt down into a flaming sludge of insults, accusations and self-righteousness. 

Incidentally, what’s the advantage of concealed carry?  If the point is self-defense, wouldn’t a clearly visible weapon help prevent some confrontations?

Incidentally, what’s the advantage of concealed carry?

There are plenty of gun owners who advocate open carry. Personally, I wouldn’t have any interest in carrying open, for several reasons. One is because I think it makes a lot of people uncomfortable—I don’t think scaring people all day is worth the tiny chance that someone who was intending to attack me would see the gun and be warned off. Also it gives people access to your gun, I think something like 10% of police homicide victims are killed with their own gun because it’s so easy to grab. It has the potential to arm otherwise unarmed people. Of course, if I lived in a more rural area where I had very little close contact with people who were not my immediate friends or family, there’s a good chance I’d feel differently about it.

If the point is self-defense, wouldn’t a clearly visible weapon help prevent some confrontations?

Deterrent and self-defense are two different things. Would it have a deterrent effect? I mean, I would think so. But like I said, I don’t think that possibly scaring off a criminal once in a lifetime is worth scaring the shit out of everyone else every single day.

On the other hand, it’s not always going to deter an attack—especially since most attacks happen at night, it’d be easy to not even notice someone was carrying. Case in point, from this week:

RACINE — Four teens knocked a 42-year-old Racine man from his bike Friday night. He thought they were going to rob him. The man pulled a Smith and Wesson revolver from his side holster, pointed it at the sky and yelled, “Gun!”

The four suspects ran, and the man flagged down a Racine police officer.

The teens obviously didn’t notice he had a gun on his hip. And he handled it well—he didn’t want to hurt anyone, he didn’t just start blasting away slaying bystanders, and he didn’t take it as a “golden opportunity” to peace out some thugs. He brandished the weapon in a safe direction, announced it’s presence, and ended the confrontation.

The twist is that this occurred in a “Gun Free School Zone”:

The incident will perhaps mark the first time a new opinion allowing open carry of firearms is put to the test here, as it conflicts with another state statute that makes it illegal to possess a gun within 1,000 feet of a school, if not on private property. The Racine man involved was assaulted in the 1100 block of Grand Avenue, which is within 1,000 feet of Walden School, 1012 Center St.

Police did not arrest the man. After he was treated for head and wrist injuries at the scene by Racine rescue, officers escorted the man home and returned his gun to him. But that doesn’t mean charges won’t be filed against the man ...

Interesting case. I’m curious to see how it pans out.

If the point is self-defense, wouldn’t a clearly visible weapon help prevent some confrontations?

Or invite ambushes or pre-emptive strikes (as it were).