Fender Bender Leads to Fatal Shooting

[TPaine7]

Written by the shooter:

June 28, 2008, was a defining moment in my life. It was the day I shot and killed a man in the defense of my life and the lives of others. We all have defining moments. They might not be as tragic as taking another man's life, but they are events that change the way we look at things -- or even, perhaps, how we live our lives.
...

On June 28, only two days after the Supreme Court announced its 5-4 ruling that Washington, D.C., citizens have the right to bear arms under the Second Amendment to the Constitution, I found myself standing in a pool of blood in York, from a man I had just shot. It was not my intent that evening to test the Second Amendment or kill somebody, but events unfolded to make it necessary for me to draw my weapon to defend myself and others.

My fiancée Maria and I had spent the day showing real estate investors our investment properties in York. We were driving to nearby Hanover to visit my mother when we came across what looked like a rear-end traffic accident.

Instead, a man, Douglas Need, had been driving recklessly when he swerved in front of a car and was hit in the rear. In a fit of road rage, he stormed out of his car, went back to two young women and a baby in the car that hit his, reached through the driver's window and started beating the driver very violently. She was able to break free and drive her car to the only place she could go -- the parking lot next to the street. Need ran back to his car, squealed his tires into the parking lot and looked as though he was going to broadside the women's car with them still inside.

At the last moment, he swerved his car around and blocked hers from going anywhere. I pulled into the parking lot, got out of the car and yelled at Need to leave the women alone while Need's passenger was in the parking lot. My gun was still holstered by my side. The woman got out of her car and escaped into the store. He followed but only moments later exited the store back into the parking lot. Both Need and the man with him were uncontrollably enraged and seemed deranged past the point of caring who they hurt.

As they continued to threaten that they had guns and were going to kill people, for some unknown reason Need ran to the driver's side door of my car and started pounding on the window, shouting at my fiancée who was inside the car with the engine running. Fearing that Maria's life was in danger because of his previous death threats, that's when I drew my weapon. I ordered Need to step away from my car, which he did. He then returned to the center of the parking lot, according to witnesses, and continued with threats and deranged behavior.

I went to my car and stood at the driver's side door. Need turned back to me and started coming at me with his arms waving and shouting "just shoot me." I ordered him to stay back, but he kept coming. Then, when he was about four or five feet from me, he put his hand into his pants pocket, and that is when I fired my first shot into his left thigh. It didn't stop him from coming at me. He grabbed my shirt, ripped off the top button and grabbed my right arm. That's when I shot him the second time point-blank into his thigh. I was told later that the bullets had severed his femoral artery and he had bled to death at York Hospital. I was truly sorry he died, but knew I had made the right decisions.

...

Criticism has come from both sides of the gun control issue with Second Amendment advocates saying I should have shot to kill him in the first place. People not in favor of the individual right to bear arms have both criticized me for stopping to help the women in distress and in using my weapon to defend myself and others.

Online commentator "Computer Steve" responded to a newspaper article saying, "His concealed weapons permit should be revoked. You cannot just intervene on behalf of someone else." He went on to say, "I witness crimes and call 911 on a weekly basis and there is nothing I can do but watch the crime take place and relay the information to 911. If I had known that I was able to intervene I could have stopped a violent sexual assault in front of the YMCA on Tuesday evening. So what's the law? Are we intervening on our own now or what?"

Another online respondent, "Forgot to Mention," implied that the women deserved what they got by becoming involved in a road rage encounter. This respondent commented, "I would never engage in road rage or pull over to fight with someone who did. Why did that women (woman) place herself and her passengers in such a dangerous situation?"

Nothing could be more ludicrous, given the facts and the innocence of the women who were victimized.

In the Supreme Court's majority decision, the court said, "It is not the responsibility of the police to protect the individual, but society as a whole." I take this to mean that any American who witnesses the wrongdoing of an innocent has the lawful right to intervene on behalf of that victim. So how can people like "Computer Steve" and "Forgot to Mention" possibly live with themselves knowing they could allow heinous crimes to take place before their very eyes and just sit and watch without intervention?

Source: http://ydr.inyork.com/ci_10219218?source=most_emailed

People should help others when they can. A society that will watch "violent sexual assault<s>" in public is very much like a prison--a prison in need of reform. People should be prepared mentally to lend each other help, and this is not limited to gun related incidents (though guns are tools for a subset of these situations.)

I watched a video recently of a man hit by a hit-and-run driver and left in the street by passersby who like to style themselves "human." Another real life horror flick showed a woman collapse and eventually die in a doctor's office while "people" watched. What is wrong with us?! Those human beings who are able--mentally, physically and situationally--to prevent major violent felonies should not stand by and watch, any more than anyone should watch someone in a situation like those videos.

A gun in the holster of a reasonable, civic-minded adult is not a penis extender (or substitute), a license to kill, a weapon of mass destruction, or a net danger to society. It is a tool, a tool to be used only in the gravest extreme to preserve the lives and limbs of innocents.

The idea that capable people had to wait for government officials to stop a rape, murder, kidnapping or assault in progress (as expressed by "Computer Steve") would have sounded to early Americans like awaiting permission to breathe--preposterous on its face, unworthy of the dignity of a beast, never mind an alleged "human being." If that is the definition of civilization, may America enjoy permanent barbarism.

[zanne]

1. If neither person had had a gun, nobody would have died.

No heroics here. Just out of control gun madness. If the first man, who couldn't control his insane temper, had not had a gun, the second man would not have had to shoot him.

[pipoman]

3. People die very regularly

from beatings or as a result of a beating (hitting head on concrete or an object). Teevee fist fights rarely show this so most people, most dangerously kids, don't realize the very real possibility of death or worse resulting from a beating. The rage guy could easily kill another person, like the woman in the car, if for instance, he pulled her from the car and started kicking her, hit her head against the steering wheel, etc.

Edit: Whats worse than death? When I was in high school a drug addled classmate kicked another classmate (honor student) in the head one time. The recipient of the kick eats through a tube, lives in a nursing home and doesn't know his mother to this day.

[zanne]

4. If the only danger was the beating, shooter # 2 could have used his fists...

To prevent the first guy from beating that woman. But I can see that this is the way it's going to be now; no danger in getting bloody from a close-up confrontation anymore--just pull the trigger. So very manly.

[Dimensio0]

6. Please justify your assertion.

Why is it unreasonable to use a firearm to prevent a physical assault? Do you believe that individuals should be legally required to risk permanent debilitating harm when confronting an attacker by being restricted from any ranged defensive weapons? If so, what is the rationale for your position?

[one-eyed fat man]

9. Crime Watch..........

March 13, 1964, Kitty Genovese was murdered outside her home in Queens while 38 witnesses did nothing to save her.

When I read about this in the papers 44 years ago it mystified me how anyone could be so callous. From the sound of the comments in this forum, an event like that happening in 2008 isn't worth newsprint. Intervening in defence of an innocent is to be avoided; certainly it is not regarded as a civic duty.

One line in the article really struck me, "You cannot just intervene on behalf of someone else." He went on to say, "I witness crimes and call 911 on a weekly basis and there is nothing I can do but watch the crime take place..."

So let me ask those who have characterized the guy who intervened as 'gun-crazed', what would you do? Let the women get beaten? Who knows what they did to deserve it? Drive on by since you really had urgent business elsewhere? If not you, then who?

'Crime Watch' does not mean you call for the cops and for a pizza then take side bets on who shows up first.

[krispos42]

11. This isn't boxing

This isn't "sport". If, god forbid, I'm ever violently attacked I want my attacker stopped as soon as possible with the absolute minimum of harm done to me and my family. And if that's not "manly" to you, then so be it. You can be "manly" the next time you're attacked in a parking lot. Tell anybody that tries to help you to not get involved and just fend for yourself.


Incidenly, if what Fentimen did wasn't "manly", exactly what was it?

[zanne]

12. You guys just confirm what I always suspected...

Some people rely on guns because they aren't courageous enought to deal with danger face-to-face. It's easy to just pull the trigger.

[slackmaster]

16. Using a gun defensively requires a great deal of courage

If you survive the attack, even if you were fully justified in shooting someone you are likely to suffer many levels of legal, social, and emotional hassles.

People who have not been trained in self-defense usually haven't thought about those consequences.

One of the big reasons I don't carry one is that I am not sure I am up to facing those risks. I prefer to rely on my ability to avoid trouble, to talk my way out of it, or run like hell.

It's only criminal misuse of a gun that requires no thought, no courage, no willingness to accept consequences. It's in the political interests of gun-grabbers to blur the distinction between lawful and unlawful use.

[zanne]

39. OOOOOOOOOOOOH. You'll suffer "hassles". nt

[slackmaster]

42. "Hassles" can include being incarcerated, sued, losing your job, etc.

This is serious business.

Your attitude sounds pretty juvenile.

[krispos42]

17. Exactly

I have zero interest in proving how macho or masuline or manly I am when somebody's kicking in my front door. This is not some quasi-ritualistic fight over, say, a woman. And it's most definately not a game.

I want an easy victory. If it involves scaring some would-be burglar with the business end of a shotgun, it's well worth the $269 I spent on it. And if ivolves firing 60¢ worth of buckshot into somebody that decides I'm worth beating into a pulp or slicing into strips, well, that's also money well spent.




I save being manly for doing things like maintaining my own car and moving furniture.

[jeepnstein]

28. Courage?

When does courage have anything to do with winning a fight? This isn't some kind of school yard game that boys play. There are people in this world with enough anger, drugs, and desperation in them to make you into a vegetable with very little, if any, provocation. There are monsters and they are walking among us every day just waiting for an excuse to rear their heads. Have you ever seen someone beat until an eyeball pops out of it's socket. Or how about someone who has been kicked in the head until their brain is mush. Have you ever seen someone carved up with a knife? Do you know what kind of sound a baseball bat makes when it hits someone in the head? There are plenty of good reasons to carry a gun if you are properly trained and qualified.

An no, it's not easy to pull the trigger. The only time it's easy is in the movies or on the tube. For those of us who live in the real world it is the very last thing you ever want to do.

[Name removed]

40. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Name removed]

48. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

55. So people who are physically disabled and carry firearms for protection are cowards?

Shame on you.

David

[SteveM]

64. So just where did you get your philosophy for non- self-defense? (nt)

[Callisto32]

91. Why do you think it is easy to pull a trigger?

Granted, the actual physical act of depressing the trigger of a firearm is easy enough for most adults. However, you seem to think that the great majority of the gun-owning/carrying public has this amazing ability to, well, basically be free of any kind of moral apprehension about taking the life of another human being. It isn't about pulling the trigger, it is about ending a life. Ending ANY life, is difficult.

Trust me on that, I used to engage in pest control for a couple of local, small farmers. I always took a shot that I was certain would result in as quick and painless a death as possible for the animals involved. And if I had any reservations about just how effective the shot would be I did not take it. Many times I let them run off, just because I didn't have the ability to make myself pull the trigger, even the the shot was clean.

And you know what, I shed a tear for each and every one of those groundhogs. I begged God for forgiveness for every life I took. Those were the lives of rodents that had been destroying the livelihoods of hard-working people in my home-town area, some of whom are family.

Don't sit on your high horse and pretend that it is somehow easy to make a decision like this; That shooting another living thing is somehow simple, or that it is the act of one who is incapable of moral reasoning.

Now look at the situation at hand. Human lives and well being was at stake. Talk some more to me about courage and "ease" of taking life.

Frankly, it concerns me that you think that shooting something is somehow easy.

I sincerely hope you never learn otherwise.

[slackmaster]

20. The old "It's not FAIR to use a gun against someone who doesn't have one" fallacy

But I can see that this is the way it's going to be now; no danger in getting bloody from a close-up confrontation anymore--just pull the trigger.

If you think there is no danger in using deadly force, you are quite ignorant.

[JonQ]

21. So the right to self-defense

should be based on how big and tough you are? God help females, the elderly, handicapped, or just physically small, apparently you deserve to get the stuffing beaten out of you for no reason by a deranged, but larger, individual.

[TPaine7]

32. It's called civilization--

at least in some countries.

[JonQ]

37. If civilization means

watching two women get beaten to death for no reason while all the onlookers sit by idly waiting for the police to come and intervene (which will come to late) then you can keep it.

I thought we were supposed to look after each other.

If you see a homeless man asking for change do you tell him to get lost, we have programs for that. If you see a person bleeding to death in the street with no one to help do you keep walking because we have programs for that sort of thing? If you neighbors house burns down and they need a place to stay do you tell them to call FEMA then slam the door in their face? I certainly hope not.

[TPaine7]

44. I forgot the sarcasm symbol.

I wrote the OP.

IOW, I agree with you 100%.

[JonQ]

49. *obligatory headsmack*

sorry, I didn't catch that. There's alot of people who do think like that so I thought you were being serious. Duh.

[Old Codger]

27. Do you HONESTLY

feel that anyone is required to take a beating from someone who may be quite a bit larger than themselves ???? Would you do that???? Would a person in a wheelchair for instance not be justified in protecting themselves from an attack if they could or in your opinion are they required to just be beat up because someone is angry for some reason... the law is very very plain on this ... You can protect yourself, you are allowed to use lethal force if and only if you feel that you or someone else is in danger of severe bodily harm or death.... This guy threatened that he had guns, are we required to stand around and allow him to get the first shot before we are allowed to defend ourselves??? O'l computer steve is an idiot and a coward if he stood around watching an attack and did no more than call 911 and then watch the attack while he conversed with the operator.. what idiocy...

[tburnsten]

36. Also in the prevention of Felony crimes

Lethal force is also authorized to prevent or stop in progress any felony.

[AtheistCrusader]

76. I think that varies by state.

Someone trying to steal a $5000 tv is committing a felony, but it is not necessarily justifiable to shoot them.


Here in Washington, Homicide is justifiable when committed either:

(1) In the lawful defense of the slayer, or his or her husband, wife, parent, child, brother, or sister, or of any other person in his presence or company, when there is reasonable ground to apprehend a design on the part of the person slain to commit a felony or to do some great personal injury to the slayer or to any such person, and there is imminent danger of such design being accomplished; or

(2) In the actual resistance of an attempt to commit a felony upon the slayer, in his presence, or upon or in a dwelling, or other place of abode, in which he is.



That's direct RCW. There's a separate statute on top of that that authorizes it by a public officer, peace officer, or person aiding.

[tburnsten]

78. Interesting

"(2) In the actual resistance of an attempt to commit a felony upon the slayer, in his presence, or upon or in a dwelling, or other place of abode, in which he is."


So in other words, if someone breaks in and is in the process of stealing your $5,000 TV, and you say, "hey buddy, stop stealing my TV!" and he carries on, it would be acceptable to kill him. Resisting an attempted felony.

[AtheistCrusader]

81. I get the feeling that would not go over well in front of a jury.

But the letter of the law does seem to support your point.

Still, I wouldn't do it. I'll kill to protect life only.

[tburnsten]

82. I'd do what it takes to keep a stranger out of the home

I have just started a family, and some dude intent on committing crimes against us while we are home is an unknown quantity, while Winchester Ranger nine pellet is a very known quantity. If I were a gambler, I know which one I'd bet on.

[zanne]

41. Just do what you do in the gun forum...

If somebody starts disagreeing with you, contact all your buddies so you can get enough "group courage" to gang up on him/her. You're all real men.

[friendly_iconoclast]

43. Nice dodge-and a few more questions for zanne

Do you think there is some kind of cabal on the gun forum where people IM each other
and say, "Hey, X is in the Gungeon. Lets go gang up on her/him!"?

Do you have any evidence of this beside your offended sensibilities?

When is it acceptable to you to defend one's self or others with fatal force?

Do you think the people who stood around and watched a two year old get stomped
to death (see link in post #25) did the right thing to wait for the cops?

If not, how old does the victim have to be before it becomes OK in your view?

[slackmaster]

45. Wasn't it you who just accused another contributor of paranoia?

Interesting.

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

56. Do what you do when you lose an argument, put them on ignore.

[slackmaster]

57. Yeah, I thought I was on Ignore

What gives here?

[tburnsten]

35. ZING!!!! Complete miss

Did you even read his post? a beating isn't the happy fun fun event that it looks like on the television and movie screens, people are kicked, punched, and beaten to death or very close to it every day. The man so clearly in the wrong in this situation needed to be shot to protect the lives and health of his victims, regardless of whether or not they were only at risk of a "beating". And there were two of those crazies, not just one. I don't expect that the writer of the article is Jet Li, so I don't know why you would think that would be a viable option.

[TPaine7]

53. Wow, you nailed the right wing stereotype of liberals

Fantasy worldview? Check.

If neither person had had a gun, nobody would have died. (Post 1)

Yes and if there were no crime, we wouldn't need prisons. Let's make crime illegal and inform the governor so she can eliminate the prison budget.

No heroics here. (Post 1)

Tell that to the mother, her companion, and the baby in about 10 years.

Just out of control gun madness. (Post 1)

Need I comment? Nah, too easy.



Profound concern for the well being of violent felons during the commission of their crimes? Check.

If the first man, who couldn't control his insane temper, had not had a gun, the second man would not have had to shoot him.

Profound disregard for the well being of law abiding citizens in the act of stopping a crime? Check.

If the only danger was the beating, shooter # 2 could have used his fists...
To prevent the first guy from beating that woman. But I can see that this is the way it's going to be now; no danger in getting bloody from a close-up confrontation anymore--just pull the trigger.

A law abiding 50 year old man should fistfight two very angry younger men, one of whom has already beaten a woman, rather than attempt to subdue them as safely as possible.


And just for good measure--you threw in a conservative stereotype--confusion of the right to self defense with masculinity:

So very manly.

Manliness is beside the point. Humanity is the issue.

[AtheistCrusader]

58. All hail the return of the cave man.

Forget the wild wild west, heck, skip the fire-axe age even, let's just settle all this with our bare fists! What a wonderful idea.

Woman in trouble? Better send in a burly MAN to deal with it, hey? First good samaritan on-hand with a pistol is just too feminine, can't have that.

What a whacky world you live in.

[pipoman]

60. Wow,

just wow. Do you write love letters to mass murderers on death row too?

Edit: as long as they didn't use a gun in their crimes..

[gorfle]

62. Give me a break.

If the only danger was the beating, shooter # 2 could have used his fists...

To prevent the first guy from beating that woman. But I can see that this is the way it's going to be now; no danger in getting bloody from a close-up confrontation anymore--just pull the trigger. So very manly.

Zanne, "fair" fights are for the movies and romance novels. When you are fighting for your life, anything and everything goes. You better believe that when our police and military go into a fight they don't take steps to make it a fair fight - in fact they take all the steps they can to insure it is not a fair fight.

Your entire argument is that everyone should just use their own innate natural strength to defend themselves. This is ridiculous. Do you think the evil people of this world whom we have to defend ourselves against would be so willing to give you a fair shake? I don't.

[MicaelS]

8. Right so if neither had a gun

Douglas Allen Need could have beaten one of the women very badly, possibly have killed her. Then he could have beaten Fentman, and Fentman's fiance.

Right, zanne makes perfect sense, gun control is letting a 200 lb man beat a 120 lb woman.

Douglas Allen Need just committed suicide, that's really all that happened.

[krispos42]

10. Nothing in the article said the dead guy had a gun on him

It said he claimed to have a gun.

In any event, being attacked by an enraged man is a reason to use lethal force in self-defense. Need had no right to attack Fentimen and Fentimen justifiably feared for his life and health, and that of his passenger. Need's armament or lack thereof becomes irrelevent.



And there were heroics here. The shooter, Fentimen, did soemthing heroic when he confronted a violent man threatening two innocent women and a baby and allowed them time to escape from their vehicle and into the relative safety of the store. Regardless of how this had turned out past that point, if Need has gotten back in his car and driven away, or if the police has showed up and put him in custody, that selfless intervention was a moderate bit of heroism.

[zanne]

14. Read the article again.

He was shot when he appeared to be going for his gun.

[slackmaster]

15. Never bring an empty pants pocket to a gun fight

[one-eyed fat man]

23. lunatics.............

When you are faced with a lunatic threatening to kill people and claiming to have a gun you have every legal right to believe him! The fact that he was bluffing is immaterial.

The fact that he pressed his assault after having been shot once, indicates, in the very least, that the late Mr. Need was a slow learner.

[slackmaster]

24. Even in the UK or Japan you have to take a gun-related bluff seriously

[krispos42]

18. "Appeared"

n/t

[SteveM]

65. You mean he wasn't going for his "manly" penis?

Judging from how you couch your gun politics within obsessions of manliness and reproductive anatomy size, why all of a sudden did you even broach the subject of firearms?

[tburnsten]

33. He didn't have a gun

He died as a direct result of his own actions though, and if the man had not been armed then it is very likely that at least one of the two women in the car he was punching could have been seriously injured or even killed by him. His death was unfortunate in that it put the shooter and his fiance in a terrible situation, however the end result is that a dangerous situation was resolved the best way it could have been. I don't view good people being beaten into a coma as a better result than a bad person endangering the lives of others and brutalizing good people (including a pair of women with a child) being shot dead.

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

54. People die from physical assaults all the time.

Your assertion that no one would have died is mere conjecture.

David

[gorfle]

61. In fact...

No heroics here. Just out of control gun madness. If the first man, who couldn't control his insane temper, had not had a gun, the second man would not have had to shoot him.

In fact, from the article it is not clear if the man who was killed ever actually had a firearm.

He still deserved exactly what he got. In fact, he quite literally asked for it.

[krispos42]

92. Minor Fender-Bender Leads to Murderous Rampage in Fla.

LAKE HAMILTON, Fla. — A Florida man was arrested after allegedly going on a violent rampage after a minor fender-bender, slashing and stabbing the occupants of a car, then running over and killing a woman who had been riding in another nearby vehicle.

Casey Weldon Till, 26, of Haines City, faces murder and carjacking charges after the attacks involving family members traveling in two vehicles.

The Polk County Sheriff's Office tracked Till to his home through a pill bottle left at the scene late Sunday night. Police allege that he killed Odalis Cespedes, 41, by running her over twice. Till told police he was high on crack at the time.

The violence apparently unfolded after Till's minivan slammed into a stopped car being driven by Cespedes' daughter, 19-year-old Ivon Despaigne, and her boyfriend, 21-year-old Angel Gonzalez, of Kissimmee. When the couple got out to check the damage, Till allegedly slashed Gonzalez's throat and stabbed Despaigne in the neck.

Investigators say Till then got into the couple's car and repeatedly rammed the vehicle ahead, occupied by Cespedes, her husband, 41-year-old Mario Despaigne, and their 6-month-old granddaughter.

The couple got their granddaughter out of the car seat and Cespedes was trying to flee with the baby in her arms when she was killed, Mario Despaigne said in an interview with The Ledger, which was conducted through an interpreter.

<more>

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,406762,00.html

Looks like somebody followed your advice.

[liberal N proud]

2. This is why everybody should have a gun

Wild - Wild West shootouts.

Think about it, the police wouldn't need to investigate many accidents or civil disturbances. You get into a fender bender, the one who got hit pulls out his 38 and blows the offender away. Just call the morgue to pick up the body.
If you get pissed at your neighbor because his tree fell on your back yard, shoot him. You can get new neighbors and maybe you will like them better.

Teachers having guns, now that is the answer to all school violence, Kid get out of line, whiz a bullet past his/her ear. Those little fuckers will sit quietly and only talk when told to speak. No more of this class room back talk.


MORE GUNS, that is the answer!

[Dimensio0]

7. Do you have any statements of substance to offer?

For example, do you have anything to say that relates to the current discussion?

[liberal N proud]

13. Out side of the fact that we have so many fucking loons running around

Hot heads and just crazy fuckers, people who get out of their car at a stop light and want to pull you out of your car because you let someone cut in (Personal experience).

Yeah, lets give that crazy bastard a gun, that way when I am a nice guy some afternoon in busy traffic while this jerk is behind me gets pissed off. He will just have to pull out his pistol and let me have it in the back of the head.

Sounds like a great time to me! BANG! your dead.

[krispos42]

19. Well, I have some good news for you

Our homicide rate is down 40% over the last 16 years or so.

If you don't feel safer, it's probably because you're still listening to the "if it bleeds it leads" MSM.

[JonQ]

22. In this case

the crazy bastard didn't have a gun, the sane guy did. So instead of sitting there helplessly while two women were ruthlessly beaten to death (as the online commentators suggested) he defended himself and them and in the process no one was hurt, except for this one guy who was clearly a threat to society. This is exactly how these sorts of things should play out.

[one-eyed fat man]

25. speaking of loons............

You prefer this outcome? A sheriff's deputy finally stopped the killer but not in time to prevent the needless and savage beating to death of a 2 year old boy!

http://www.cnn.com/2008/CRIME/06/17/toddler.killed.ap/i...

You tell me what YOU would have done? Would you have been the one to run in there unarmed and try to stop a 27 year old man? With what?

This case shows that, sometimes, the bastard just needs shooting!

[friendly_iconoclast]

34. Gee, the people who denounced Fentman seem to have fallen silent...

...all of a sudden.

Why aren't they defending the "call 911 and wait" or "duke it out like it's a schoolyard"
approaches in this case?

I guess it's acceptable for adults to be beaten into a coma or killed by a maniac,
but doing it to a toddler just isn't done, y'know.

Adults are just collateral damage, it seems.

[Dimensio0]

46. I do not understand your statement.

Yeah, lets give that crazy bastard a gun, that way when I am a nice guy some afternoon in busy traffic while this jerk is behind me gets pissed off.

Who, exactly, has advocated providing a firearm to the individual to whom you refer?

[SteveM]

67. Really, you should charge for your services to the GOP (nt)

[DeadEyeDyck]

88. The Centers for Disease Controls and Prevention...

has released statements(reluctantly) that they have concluded that gun ownership reduces crime.

[TPaine7]

90. Citation please!

Pretty please with a bow on top.

I could really use that.

[benEzra]

26. Yes, the sky is falling...

Statistics from the U.S. Department of Justice. The 2007 stats are still coming in, but so far it looks like 2007 will be lower than 2005, BTW.

For perspective, the period 1993-2004 coincided with both the sharpest increase in lawful gun sales in recent U.S. history (particularly rifles and handguns) and with nationwide CHL reform, making it easier for the non-rich and non-politically-connected to obtain a carry license if they are otherwise qualified to do so.

The sky is not, in fact, falling, though you'd never know it from the corporatist zealots in the MSM.

[AtheistCrusader]

77. A lot of those Officers

are killed with their own firearms as well.

[tburnsten]

38. Wow, look at that display of reading comprehension

A six year old could read that article more accurately than you did. Good job.

[one-eyed fat man]

47. Wild West was safer...........

than the east side of Cleveland!............or a lot of other present day cities like New York, Chicago, Detroit or the nation's Capitol

The Washington Post whimpered that Washington DC "is not Dodge City in the 1800s", and thus should be allowed to continue its total handgun ban.

* from 1876 until 1885, Dodge City had 15 homicides.
* Dodge City's worst year for murder was 1878, when 5 people were murdered.
* Washington DC had 169 homicides in 2006.

Every time a Concealed Carry law has been passed in the past 20 years there have been shrill cries of "Dodge City...OK Corral......Wild West shootouts...........every fender bender..........there will be BLOOD IN THE STREETS!!!!!"

Are your feet wet yet? You tripping over corpses in your driveway? Thugs are still doing brutish things, mostly to each other. Just very occasionally do they run onto an uncooperative victim who takes a 'bite out of crime' by shooting back. Just enough to lower the rate of assault and directly confrontational crimes by a small but measurable amount. But your irrational fear of the oft-predicted 'blood-bath' that will come with law-abiding citizens carrying guns for their defense has yet to materialize.

So the answer is, YOU don't need a gun with concealed carry. You don't have to have one, if the thug wondering "What's in your wallet?" opts to pass because he's not sure which one of us he is casing.

[SteveM]

66. We can see it's sarcasm; certainly, not anything constructive (nt)

[newfie11]

5. To bad there aren't more like him. He did exactly what he should have done.

Of course we can be like the zebras in africa. Running from a lion. Oh darn brother george got caught and is being eaten. Oh well lets go back to grazing. The herd mentality in this country is unbelievable.

[Scout]

29. why didn't the woman put up her car window and stay in the car?

edit to add: I'm certainly not blaming the woman in the car.

[TPaine7]

30. Initially,

she may have thought that even an enraged man would not attack a woman with a baby.

Later, she may have taken his gun threat seriously. Windows--at least standard issue windows--won't stop bullets.

[JonQ]

31. If you get in a wreck, even a small one

you're supposed to stop, get out of the car and exchange information. She acted appropriately given what she knew of the situation initially. He didn't.

[Scout]

50. nope you're wrong

he got out of his car immediately after the accident, and walked back to her car and reached in the window.

she didn't get out of the car until later.

[tburnsten]

51. Is her car equipped with blunt object resistant windows?

If not I have a hard time believing that's a terribly effective response. It just strikes me as sort of wishful thinking/I'm in my own little bubble approach, that will not likely withstand a madman's beatings.


Plus she was blocked in. nowhere to run to, nowhere to hide. This guy saved two women, a small baby, his fiance, and himself from the life-threatening attack of a sociopath. Excellent work.

[Scout]

71. i'd bet that the average car window can't be broken by the average human fist.

all she had to do was stay in the car with the window closed.

[tburnsten]

72. That's a retarded statement

She wasn't driving a Stryker armored personnel carrier, she was driving a car. An enraged man is absolutely capable of busting through an auto glass window. I don't know what type of car you drive or what sort of overwhelming anemia you suffer, but anyone who could be remotely described as "healthy" is quite capable either busting a window with their elbows or using any old object off the ground to break it.

[AtheistCrusader]

75. Windshield, probably not

but side window, oh yeah, fist, foot, elbow, you could probably break it with your head if you were mad enough. Knee too if you could get a good enough angle on it, though you might look like you were trying to hump the side of the car.

Even if you can't shatter the glass, it's just a couple pop rivets or screws holding the tracks in place in most cars. If you don't care who witnesses you doing it, you can get into a car pretty quick, to say nothing of a rock, or any other implement laying around.

Rolling up your window and wishing the problem away when you have an adult human outside the car window, trying to kill you, is a losing proposition.

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

80. What about the average human foot?

I would have just parked the car on top of him until the cops arrived.

David

[DeadEyeDyck]

89. Guess again

My friend was on his motorcycle and witnessed a child killing himself by choking with the automatic window. He was kneeling on the arm-rest, pressing the up button and the window was choking him. My fried was behind the car (station wagon), jumped off his bike and ran to the car and screamed for the woman to open the window. She panicked and closed her window, not knowing what he was talking about. He turned and slammed his fist against the window that was strangling the child and smashed it out from under him, saving he child's life.

He was not that big of a man though he was full of adrenaline, I imagine.

[SteveM]

68. You said you didn't want to blame her. 'Changing your mind, now? (nt)

[Scout]

70. no, i'm still not blaming her, i'm just saying you don't always/only

have to use a gun.

unless he pulled the gun and beat on her car window with it, or shot her through the window, i doubt he'd have been able to do anything with his fists through the closed car window. she'd have been safer staying in the car.

i'm sick of theses "oh the poor little woman had to be saved by the big brave man with a gun" stories.

[AtheistCrusader]

74. There are

'poor little woman saving herself with a gun' stories too. Are we allowed to share those?

By the way, it's pretty easy to break a car window. I've done it plenty of times, with no weapon or tool.

Perhaps her window was already rolled down, and it was electric. If she shut off her ignition, it won't roll up.
Perhaps she couldn't crank the window up fast enough when he became hostile, punching her, driving her back from the window crank?

An immobile car isn't a terribly safe place to be, if someone is intent on getting in and harming you, and they don't care who sees or hears the attack. That kind of force can only be met with fight or flight. You can't hide in a car, unless you happen to be driving an armored limo or something. Incidents like this unfold in seconds too, adrenaline and fear can impair judgment. I love all the armchair quarterbacks that analyze these situations in the cold, calm comfort of their computer chairs, with no scumbag trying to hurt or kill you. It's an experience, trust me.

To me, this incident highlights the design purpose of most firearms. To protect human life. Job well done. Aiming to wound and not kill was a risky decision, and I am glad it worked out for him. It's his choice, I won't question it. I would like to point out he shouldered the burden of increased risk in the hopes that he wouldn't have to kill an enraged man, that was trying to hurt him. Pretty noble in my book. Can't say I would do the same.

[SteveM]

84. "poor little woman" doesn't have to be saved by "brave man with a gun..."

especially, in this instance, when a male attacker comes after a man who has a gun. At this point, several folks were endangered by a highly aggressive individual bent on doing harm.

Another way for women to prevent attack is to obtain concealed-carry permits. That way, if an attacker DOES break into a car, it won't do him much "good."

I think Americans should sit down and seriously re-consider what self-defense means. It's not vigilantism, it's not the "law of the jungle," it's not looking for a fight. It means defending one's self from harm and mayhem; frankly, "self-defense" ought to extend to the community of civilized people under attack, as Gandhi envisioned.

[TPaine7]

86. For your reading pleasure. . .

Here's a story about a "poor little woman" defending herself:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.ph...


And here's one about a "poor little woman" with a gun saving a "big brave man" without a gun:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.ph...

What a difference a gun makes, huh? It makes you see Thomas Jefferson's quote about the "duty to be at all times armed" in a new light.



As for the rest of it, no one--at least no one who doesn't need psychiatric assistance--thinks that you always and only have to use a gun in a confrontation. And while it is easy to second guess another person's emergency actions after the fact, I agree with the woman's decision to go in the store. The assailant was wound up and threatening to shoot people. If he had actually had a gun, and had decided to shoot her, her window would have provided no protection. None.

By going in the store, she put space between them, she increased the witnesses, she increased the likelyhood of encountering an off duty officer, she provided herself with hiding places, and she gave the police more time to respond to the situation. If she saw an opportunity to safely do those things, she was wise to take it.

As for her initial reaction, she was correct to think that most men will not attack a strange woman with a baby in public over a fender bender. It probably didn't occur to her that he would assault her. I refuse to second guess her instincts--the fault lies entirely with the deceased.

[Archie B.]

52. When your life is threatened, what other choice do you have?

Judges and juries have weeks to decide what a reasonable man
would do under the circumstances. When you, yourself are
placed in this or a similar situation everything seems to run
in slow motion, your hearing changes, your eyesight changes,
your blood pressure rises, but you still realize you are in a
life or death situation.  You can't second guess an irate
individual that threatens you when he is advancing toward you
with a hand in a pocket or out of sight.  If he gets as close
as ten feet from you, he can kill you with a knife before he
can be stopped.  Real life situations are not what you see in
the movies, one shot from a handgun will not stop most people
bent on doing you bodily harm. My hat is off to the man who
posted this original message, for helping two women who could
not protect themselves, and would probably been seriously hurt
without his intervention.  We have a duty to help others in
crisis, and if you walk away from something like this, you
still have to live with yourself. It takes real courage to
help another in this situation.  When you pack a concealed
carry gun, you already have thought about the consequence of
having to use a firearm.   

[Old Codger]

59. Additionally

He shot him in the leg first time out>>>> He gave the guy a chance to quit,the guy wanted to die or was to stupid to realize he was serious.. Darwin award contender . You will never find any firearms instructor that would advocate "wounding" an assailant like that ... too dangerous.. Guarantee I would have double tapped him first thing.

[SteveM]

69. Also proves up the myth that shooting to "wing" someone is better (nt)

[one-eyed fat man]

63. knives and guns.............

Inside of 12 to 15 feet, the guy with a knife can be on you before you can draw. The half- to three-quarters second jump he gets by being the one who initiates the attack ensures that.

The skilled knife fighter who pulls a knife means to hurt you; he's not bluffing and you won't see it until it's too late. A hoodlum might show a gun in an attempt to intimidate, but knife guy rarely does.

Here are pictures of a detective who tried to arrest a thug with a knife who didn't want to be arrested.

[jeepnstein]

79. Everybody seems to forget that little detail of life.

Anyone who can look at those photos and tell me that a knife isn't dangerous is insane. That's why we're trained to shoot a suspect with a knife any time they get within 21 feet. Even if you manage to get the weapon away from the suspect with good old manly man unarmed self defense you're going to get carved up like the Thanksgiving Turkey in the process.

The world is full of dangerous and disturbed individuals. I wish that were not the case but it is. That is why some prudent people choose to go armed.

J.

[AtheistCrusader]

83. Just for clarification, that 21 foot rule

isn't some sort of safety zone, it's the flat, dead, bare assed minimum. If the dude with the knife is 22 feet away and means you harm, you are still in grave danger.

[one-eyed fat man]

85. You are right!

You are right about the 21 foot rule, if a threatening individual openly armed with a knife crosses that line it is time to take action. That also assumes that the officer has already drawn his weapon, but not yet levelled it at the suspect.

I should have been clearer about what I meant by 'the 12 to 15 foot' range is that someone inside that distance, who initiates an attack can generally make contact BEFORE you realize you're under attack and can reach your weapon. And that is if you are reasonably alert!

There is enormous advantage to having the initiative. In the military, whenever we had the freedom of action, we always planned to join the fight under our terms; at a time and place of our choosing; and with as much surprise as possible.

Carrying defensively, you must be mindful and accept the fact that, in the worst case, you are "giving away the first shot."

[east texas lib]

73. Good post...

And welcome to DU!

[DeadEyeDyck]

87. Myself, my wife and my son carry...

Me - Sig 226 .40
Son - KelTec PF 9
Wife Beretta .25

We are all expert marksmen and blackbelts. Nuff said?