Legal concealed weapon ruins robbery try

[X_Digger]

http://www.wxix.com/Global/story.asp?S=12299813

CINCINNATI, OH (FOX19) - Cincinnati Police are investigating a shooting where it appears a robber left the scene with the victim's cell-phone in his hand, and a slug from the victim's gun in his lower abdomen.

Police say the robber ran into someone with a concealed-carry permit, and at some point the would-be victim was able to get his gun out and shoot the suspect, who took off running from the shooting scene on Rosemont Avenue south of Glenway in West Price Hill.
<snip>
Three people have been charged in connection with the case. Troy Hammond, 21, Tremaine Hughes, 22, and Todd Hammond are all charged with aggravated robbery. Todd Hammond was the suspect who was taken to the hospital. The other two are in the Hamilton County Justice Center.

Not a lot of information, but three on one, and the victim was able to draw his weapon and wound one of the alleged robbers? Unpossible! :sarcasm:

[shadowrider]

1. These articles don't accurately

reflect the number of times a gun is pulled, a crime is averted and is NEVER reported.

[ManiacJoe]

21. Because those types of stories do not sell advertising.

[county worker]

2. In other news a concealed carry guy shot a motorist in a road rage incident.

[ArcticFox]

4. Now THAT'S something you would hear about

But I can't recall that ever being the story.

[shadowrider]

5. One CCW out of millions

not bad

[county worker]

18. You only heard about one, that doesn't mean shit

I hope they take his gun away then when he gets together with his gun totting buddies he'll feel naked and impotent.

http://www.freep.com/article/20100414/NEWS03/4140354/Man-charged-in-road-rage-shooting-case

RELATED INFORMATION
Road rage in metro Detroit

These are some of the most recent road rage incidents in metro Detroit:

• In February, a Shelby Township man was fatally shot in Clinton Township during an incident that police have called road rage.

• In March 2009, the Macomb County Sheriff's Office said there was a high-speed shootout along I-94 from Detroit to Chesterfield Township. That same month, Metamora Township police said a Utica man was shot in the face as he was driving, and Springfield Township police said that a man fired an arrow at a pickup that followed him to his house in an incident that started with an argument at a gas station.

• In April 2008, three teens -- all Chesterfield Township residents and L'Anse Creuse High School North students -- were killed in a collision caused by road rage.

• In July 2008 in Troy, a woman threw a perfume bottle at a car when she was cut off, shattering the car's driver's side window, police said.

[shadowrider]

19. Actually, I agree with you

AFTER he get out of jail, he'll be barred from LEGALLY owning a gun again and he should be. That will not stop him from illegally acquiring one, however.

[ArcticFox]

20. I don't see any reference to a CCW permit

One of those road rage examples involved a bow and arrow, hardly a concealable weapon. I thought your point was that CCW permits are bad because they lead to road rage shootings. I see reference to road rage shootings, but not in connection with a CCW.

[shadowrider]

30. Further info

Farmington Hills Police Commander Dave Stasch said today that the man — who has not been identified — will be arraigned in 47th District Court in Farmington at about 3 p.m. on charges of assault with intent to do great bodily harm and felony firearm.
But when the pair stopped for the light at 13 Mile Road, the 20-year-old got out of his car. He walked up to the Farmington Hills man’s vehicle and they started arguing in the middle of traffic.
The 27-year-old pulled out a gun, which he is licensed to carry with a concealed weapon permit, and fired, hitting the 20-year-old once in the arm, Koehn said.

[SteveM]

33. Concerning impotency: "He who first smelt it dealt it" -- Euripides.

[county worker]

35. Who gives a shit - County Worker

[tburnsten]

34. None of those "related incidents" have anything to do with concealed carry by the way

[county worker]

36. The point is that road rage is going on or is on the increase.

A portion of those in rage will have a gun. That scares the shit out of me. I'm more afraid of a person with CCW permit then I am of some criminal harming me. The chances of some fool with a gun shooting me out of road rage is greater than getting shot by a gang banger.

[tburnsten]

37. Department of Justice strongly disagrees with you.

[county worker]

40. The department of justice doesn't live my life!

You know, those macro statistics do not take into account the different lives that individuals live. They aren't worth the band width they take up and prove nothing in the micro level were we all live.

[tburnsten]

45. Nor does it proclaim odd things

In a shrill, alarmed voice.

[proteus_lives]

46. Ha.

Good one.

I believe he's retired to his parlor with the vapors.

[Euromutt]

43. You do realize that in this incident, the guy with the gun wasn't the one with "road rage"?

Insofar as anyone seems to have been suffering "road rage," it was the guy who initiated the confrontation and was shot.

[DonP]

10. I missed that news - have a link?

To the story that identified the shooter as a CCW holder?

I heard about the shooting but the last time I looked there weren't many details.

[shadowrider]

12. Here ya go

More information further down in the thread

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=118&topic_id=309805&mesg_id=309805

[county worker]

17. Man charged in road rage shooting case

Suspect in Farmington Hills assault had weapons permit


Mintz, who was licensed to carry a concealed weapon, is accused of shooting and injuring another driver in Farmington Hills. He is scheduled in court April 19 for a pre-exam conference.



http://www.freep.com/article/20100414/NEWS03/4140354/Man-charged-in-road-rage-shooting-case

[SteveM]

32. Wow! How many instances?! This could be a turning point! Yeah. really. nt

[county worker]

41. It is only common sense that the more people carry guns and the more people become enraged while

driving the better the chance that the gun carrier will shoot someone. Personally, I believe the people who feel the need to carry a gun and who don't live anymore dangerous a life than I do are some where in the lunatic fringe.

[tburnsten]

42. The people engaging in road rage incidents

Are rarely, exceedingly rarely, the people who go to the trouble to get a carry permit. It is so rare that the two groups are nearly mutually exclusive.

And people with carry permits are not the ones you need to worry about, so long as you are not attempting to murder them or otherwise victimize them.

[Euromutt]

47. As I said above, the shooter wasn't the one with road rage

The way the news stories describe it, if anyone was had a case of road rage, it was the guy who got shot; he was the one who initiated the apparently rather angry confrontation.

Just making sure nobody misses that detail in the story.

[maxsolomon]

3. Price's Hill sure has changed since i was a kid

the city made a conscious decision to eliminate section 8 vouchers from a large swath of Cincinnati's downtown Over The Rhine neighborhood to spur redevelopment, and formerly working-class Price Hill got a huge influx of poor folks.

Troy, Tremaine, and Todd are likely among the recent emigrants. got shot over a cell phone. idiots.

glad to know there's now gunfire on the streets where there once were only old german catholic ladies, including my grandma.

[PavePusher]

25. Crime, unfortunately, is highly mobile.

Wouldn't it be nice if it was confined to only those areas where no-one nice lived....

[maxsolomon]

28. in this case, it no longer is a "nice" neighborhood

and it was always run-down. i'd bet dollars to donuts these 3 geniuses lived within 2 miles of the crime scene.

when i lived in Over the Rhine, i was robbed by a guy who lived 4 blocks away.

[louis-t]

6. Neither article states that the would-be robbers were armed.

Is Ohio one of the states like TX that allows a person to shoot somebody if their life isn't in jeopardy?

[slackmaster]

7. All states allow deadly force to stop a violent felony

When someone is robbing you (i.e. using force or threat of force to take something from you), your life is by definition in jeopardy.

It doesn't matter whether or not a robber has a weapon. Any robber is legitimate target for a deadly force defense.

[X_Digger]

8. "reasonable apprehension of imminent grave bodily injury"

Does a person have to be armed to represent the above threat? That's likely what they told their purported victim, why not take them at their word?

[tburnsten]

9. A violent felony like robbery is justification for lethal force

It's not the victim's responsibility to determine the mugger's intent.

[rusty_rebar]

11. While I agree with the above statement....

... I don't think I would be very apt to shoot someone over a thing. It is not worth the hassle to shoot someone over a cell phone, or a car or the $300 you have in your wallet. However if I even had an inkling that my safety was in jeopardy, I would not hesitate to use deadly force to stop that threat.

[TheWraith]

13. How would you know?

It's not like robbers come with signs over their head denoting whether they're harmless thieves, or whether they're going to think you're holding out on them and get violent.

[X_Digger]

14. What is the "or else" in the robber's statement to the victim?

We don't know in this particular case, but it's often the threat of grievous bodily harm or death that the perpetrator threatens in order to elicit your compliance.

If a would-be robber weren't able to convince you that his threats were serious, you wouldn't comply with his demands. He's already stated his intention to harm you, unless you comply. He's already broken the social contract by which we abide.

Are you willing to take him at his word, given his demonstrated willingness to maim / kill you otherwise?

It's not about a defense of "thing", or it's inherent value. The thing with value is your life, unmolested, and uninjured.

[tburnsten]

15. That's what a robbery is though

It is a 'choice' the robber gives you to either comply with his illicit demands or face whatever level of violence he feels like doling out to you.

And often they beat, stab, or shoot their victims anyway. Sometimes in fury over the amount of loot the victim was able to give up.

All robberies are acts of violence against the victim, no matter how nice a smile the robber flashes at the victim in the process, or how much of a reassurance they give that no harm will come to them. If there was no threat of serious violence, it would not be a very effective robbery.


And also, as far as the law is concerned, even burglary is considered a crime of violence, despite no one being home at the time. I don't know how I feel about that one, but apparently it's a violent crime too.

[russ1943]

29. Bullshit alert.

Re. Your #15 “And also, as far as the law is concerned, even burglary is considered a crime of violence, despite no one being home at the time. I don't know how I feel about that one, but apparently it's a violent crime too.”

C’mon, where do you get your information? The FBI’s UCR is clearly the single most referenced reputable source for crime statistics in the US. It is not accurate to say or post that a property crime, specifically burglary, is a crime of violence as far as the law is concerned or is labeled violent crime, …….no matter how you feel about it.
Burglary was included in the now defunct “Crime Index” in the FBI’s UCR but that category was suspended in June of 2004, and it was never labeled “violent”crime, but a “property” crime within the Crime Index.



The FBI Suspends the Crime Index and Modified Crime Index In June 2004, the CJIS APB approved discontinuing the use of the Crime Index in the UCR Program and its publications and directed the FBI publish a violent crime total and a property crime total until a more viable index is developed. The Crime Index, first published in Crime in the United States in 1960, was the title used for a simple aggregation of the seven main offense classifications (Part I offenses) in Summary reporting. The Modified Crime Index was the number of Crime Index offenses plus arson. http://www.fbi.gov/ucr/05cius/about/about_ucr.html

[Euromutt]

31. Or you could just say "actually, you're wrong"

Because you're correct that burglary is not classed as a violent crime, and that tburnsten's assertion (which, it should be noted, he did qualify with "apparently") is incorrect, but sheez, do you need to be quite so confrontational about it?

[tburnsten]

38. No he couldn't

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&source=hp&q=burglary+violent+felony


Check that out.

[Euromutt]

44. You have a point there

Though the SCOTUS' ruling (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_v._United_States_%282007%29) only covers whether burglary is a "violent felony" specifically for the purposes of determining sentencing under the Armed Career Criminal Act (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Armed_Career_Criminal_Act), i.e. it's considered a "violent felony" provided the perpetrator was armed while committing it, and has been convicted at least twice for other violent felonies (under the Act) or "serious drug offenses."

But burglary in general is classed as property crime, not violent crime. Generally, burglary is defined as the unlawfully entering or remaining in a building with the intent to commit an offense therein. If you break into someone's house with intent to assault and/or rob them, it's not the burglary itself that's the violent crime, but the subsequent assault and/or robbery. The key point under the ACCA is that, by being armed, the perpetrator evidently intended or was prepared to commit a violent offense (even if he couldn't actually commit because it turned out nobody was home).

[tburnsten]

39. Check it out

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&source=hp&q=burglary+violent+felony


http://wiki.answers.com/Q/Is_burglary_of_a_habitat_a_violent_crime
A critical point there is that it is considered in some states to be a violent felony regardless of whether or not it is occupied at the time of the crime.


http://www.totallawyers.com/legal-articles-burglary-conviction.asp


Supreme Court upheld that burglary is a violent crime. So no, it is not bullshit.

[slackmaster]

16. You wouldn't be shooting someone over a thing

You'd be shooting someone to protect yourself.

[rusty_rebar]

22. I think it depends on the situation...

...

If I am walking down the street, and some low-life decides that he wants my <whatever>. If he is calm and collected, and just says something like, give me your wallet man. I would probably comply.

If on the other hand he is all hopped up on something, acting crazy or is obviously pissed that I only have $2 in my wallet, and I fear for my safety or the safety of others around, I would react differently.

I guess if it is a civilized mugging, I would be less likely to attempt to use force. I don't want to deal with $100k in legal bills and the possibility of jail time over a cell phone.

But if I felt that the situation was going to escalate to violence, then my reaction would be totally different.

When it comes down to it, this all depends on your read of the situation, and I would be pretty hard pressed to sit in judgement of someone who reacted differently. In my opinion, if you get killed while mugging someone that is tough shit on your part. I am just saying, I would not necessarily be so quick to escalate the situation myself.

[slackmaster]

23. The first situation is panhandling, not a mugging

I'd tell him to go fuck himself and then get a job. If he attacked me, I'd kick his ass.

[PavePusher]

27. There is no such thing as a "civilized" mugging.

The very fact that anyone can even carry such a philosophy is an indicator of societal degredation.

There is NO legal mandate that you may not resist a criminal. There is NO legal imperative that you must give a criminal your property without resistance.

I really can't understand the mindset of people who think otherwise.

[PavePusher]

26. $300 is a lot of money.

It could mean the difference between repairing your car/motorcycle/bicycle, and keeping your job, and thus your house, or living on the street.

I think that's worth defending, for myself.

Everyone else is, of course, free to chose differently... for themselves.

[Euromutt]

24. Three to one is generally considered a severe "disparity of force"

Sufficiently so that use of lethal force in self-defense is warranted.