The Wild, Wild West - SE Michigan

[Turtle]

Ah, yes, responsible gun ownership. There's nothing quite like the calm, cool and collected, utterly responsible actions of a responsible conceal and carry gun owner to flat out shut down the arguments of gun control advocates. Please note the implied <snort>

Chicago (AFP) - A woman in suburban Detroit opened fire on a shoplifter after seeing a security guard chase him out of a Home Depot store, police said.

The shoplifter in Tuesday's Home Depot incident was not injured, the Detroit Free Press said.

It was not clear if the woman, who has a license to carry a concealed weapon, would face any charges for taking the law into her own hands.

The woman, 48, was in the parking lot when she saw a security guard chase a black man in his 40s out of the store. The man jumped into a waiting sports utility vehicle and the woman opened fire when it began to pull away. Police believe she shot out one of the tires.

A spokesman for the Auburn Hills police department did not immediately return a request for comment. The department did, however, publish some details on Twitter.

It noted that "business was not disrupted" and asked for the public's help in locating the "getaway" car.

The incident comes just a few weeks after a bank customer in a neighboring Detroit suburb shot a robber as he was fleeing the scene.

The local mayor said the 63-year-old man, who also had a license to carry a weapon, acted within his rights because the robber threatened him on his way out the door.

The robber, 43, was treated in hospital after being shot once in each arm and once in a leg.

"I'm happy that no one was seriously injured," Jim Fouts, the mayor of Warren, Michigan, told the Detroit Free Press at the time. "He apparently exercised some caution by not shooting the robber in a vital area."

More on the story from theDetroit Free Press: Expert: Woman shouldn't have fired gun at Home Depot shoplifter.

The potential for disaster is rising exponentially. Good people with good intentions are going to hurt innocent people or get hurt themselves.

Don't get me started on the breathtakingly stupid comments of the Warren mayor, especially since in that case the shooter emptied a 13-round clip at the robbery suspect.

 

[Ragman]

Jim Fouts is an ass! IMO.

 

[davekc]

Obama is going to fix all that when he goes to Roseburg, OR where apparently many don't want him. Maybe he will stop in Chicago on the way out since they had the usual numerous shootings. Oh wait, can't do that. That is blacks shooting blacks. Whole thing is silly.

 

[JohnWC]

And maybe if more criminals got shot.
There would be less crime

 

[truckblue]

I was in Memphis a week ago, driving down Lamar Ave, and saw a woman open carrying with a model 1911 in a holster on her hip. I'm not sure of the laws there, but I just smiled and thought to myself, "no one's going to mess with that lady".

 

[Ragman]

And maybe if more criminals got shot.
There would be less crime

History says that's not the case.

 

[Turtle]

The first time some good-intentioned responsible gun owner opens fire at a suspected criminal and kills someone, particularly if that someone is a kid in a car seat, gun control advocates get what they want.

 

[Ragman]

The first time some good-intentioned responsible gun owner opens fire at a suspected criminal and kills someone, particularly if that someone is a kid in a car seat, gun control advocates get what they want.

A tragedy such as this, is going to happen...no boud atout it!
Anybody that says otherwise is just ....(censored).

 

[cheri1122]

And comments like Ben Carson's "people should rush the shooter" only encourage a vigilante mindset. It's not a huge leap from 'when actively threatened' [which is still a bad idea!] to 'whenever you think it might help' in some people's minds.
Turtle says the first time a kid in a car seat gets shot, gun control advocates get what they want, but I'm not so sure. Gun control hasn't failed because victims are deserving, [or not enough 'tug at your heart' material], but because the NRA owns too many legislators. Regulations don't reflect the will of the people, but the wish list of the powerful, in too many cases.

 

[Turtle]

Despite the various and sundry avenues to failure, gun control has ultimately failed because of that pesky "shall not be infringed" part of the Constitution. Gun control legislation that infringes is ultimately stuck down by the courts, no NRA-owned legislators required.

 

[xiggi]

And comments like Ben Carson's "people should rush the shooter" only encourage a vigilante mindset. It's not a huge leap from 'when actively threatened' [which is still a bad idea!] to 'whenever you think it might help' in some people's minds.
Turtle says the first time a kid in a car seat gets shot, gun control advocates get what they want, but I'm not so sure. Gun control hasn't failed because victims are deserving, [or not enough 'tug at your heart' material], but because the NRA owns too many legislators. Regulations don't reflect the will of the people, but the wish list of the powerful, in too many cases.

I don't really think someone trying to stop a shooter is considered a vigilante, lol.

Everyone gets goverment issued whistles and money and life will be peachy keen.

 

[jjtdrv4u]

Despite the various and sundry avenues to failure, gun control has ultimately failed because of that pesky "shall not be infringed" part of the Constitution. Gun control legislation that infringes is ultimately stuck down by the courts, no NRA-owned legislators required.

ironic about our Constitution, the writers of our great document were talking about the guns that they owned 300 years ago...they would recoil in horror at the weapons that we have now...they would pee their pants...

 

[jelliott]

Despite the various and sundry avenues to failure, gun control has ultimately failed because of that pesky "shall not be infringed" part of the Constitution. Gun control legislation that infringes is ultimately stuck down by the courts, no NRA-owned legislators required.

The question that was asked of him was...."what would you have done in that situation". He responded to that question. I don't see that as vigilante in anyway. It was no different that the people on flight 93 on 911 choosing to fight back. It isn't instigating violence, it was a response of the reaction to the situation.

 

[Turtle]

The question that was asked of him was...."what would you have done in that situation". He responded to that question. I don't see that as vigilante in anyway. It was no different that the people on flight 93 on 911 choosing to fight back. It isn't instigating violence, it was a response of the reaction to the situation.

I hope you don't think it was me who used the word "vigilante" to describe any of this. That was Cheri. I've seen the Charles Bronson movies - I know what a vigilante is. Intervening to thwart a danger to yourself or to someone else is hardly vigilantism. Taking the law into your own hands by shooting at a suspected robber, however, is.

I'm not sure why Carson was even brought up in this thread, as neither his previous actions nor his recent comments have any bearing on either of the two stories in the OP.

 

[jelliott]

No I was responding to Cheri. I hit the wrong post to quote response. Sorry.

 

[Turtle]

ironic about our Constitution, the writers of our great document were talking about the guns that they owned 300 years ago...they would recoil in horror at the weapons that we have now...they would pee their pants...

Actually, the writers of our great document were talking about the same exact guns the government has at its disposal to use against its citizens. The various state constitutions and Colonial legislations, as well as the founding fathers' own writings on the matter made clear that citizens should have the right to "bear," "carry," or "wear arms" for their own defense and the defense of the State. In 1775, North Carolina's delegation to the Continental Congress, all of whom became prominent state or federal leaders, resolved: "It is the Right of every English Subject to be prepared with Weapons for his Defense."

Just months before writing the Declaration of Independence, Jefferson kept a Commonplace Book where he copied his favorite passages from legal writers to be used in the formation of the language and the ideas of the US Constitution. as well as his own ideas for implementation. This book was the source-book and repertory of Jefferson's ideas on government. Among the passages Jefferson copied word-for-word was Beccaria's denunciation of laws which forbid di portar le armi, which is translated as to "the carrying of arms." That portion of Beccaria which Jefferson copied in Italian (writing "false ideas of utility" in the margin) was worded in the standard English translation of the time as follows:

A Principal source of errors and injustice, are false ideas of utility. For example, That legislator has false ideas of utility, who considers particular more than general convenience; who had rather command the sentiments of mankind, than excite them, and dares say to reason, "Be thou a slave;" who would sacrifice a thousand real advantages, to the fear of an imaginary or trifling inconvenience; who would deprive men of the use of fire, for fear of being burnt, and of water, for fear of being drowned; and who knows of no means of preventing evil but by destroying it.

The laws of this nature, are those which forbid to wear arms, disarming those only who are not disposed to commit the crime which the laws mean to prevent. Can it be supposed, that those who have the courage to violate the most sacred laws of humanity, and the most important of the code, will respect the less considerable and arbitrary injunctions, the violation of which is so easy, and of so little comparative importance? Does not the execution of this law deprive the subject of that personal liberty, so dear to mankind and to the wise legislator; and does it not subject the innocent to all the disagreeable circumstances that should only fall on the guilty? It certainly makes the situation of the assaulted worse, and of the assailants better, and rather encourages than prevents murder, as it requires less courage to attack unarmed than armed persons.

This was all on the heels of British General Thomas Gage, who in 1775, ordered that all private arms in Boston be deposited with the magistrates, supposedly to be stored temporarily and eventually returned to the owners (they never were returned). Those citizens naive enough to comply with the general's edict turned in 1778 muskets, 634 pistols, 973 bayonets, and 38 blunderbusses. As the Declaration of Causes of Taking up Arms passed by the Continental Congress stated: "They accordingly delivered up their arms; but in open violation of honor, ... the governor ordered the arms deposited as aforesaid ... to be seized by a body of soldiers ...." The members of the Continental Congress were not pleased that the government would seize the same weapons of the citizens for use in defense which the government had at its own disposal to use against the citizens.

Not only were the Founding Fathers keenly aware of what it takes to defend against a government, they were also keenly aware of the importance of the individual's right to keep and bear arms for their own self defense. The kinds of arms were never an issue - the only issues were being able to carry arms for self defense, and being able to carry the same arms a government could use against the citizens to deprive those citizens of their liberty. Nothing has changes in the last 300 years in that regard.

"Before a standing army can rule, the people must be disarmed, as they are in almost every country in Europe. The supreme power in America cannot enforce unjust laws by the sword; because the whole body of the people are armed, and constitute a force superior to any band of regular troops." - Noah Webster, An Examination of the Leading Principles of the Federal Constitution, October 10, 1787


"On every occasion [of Constitutional interpretation] let us carry ourselves back to the time when the Constitution was adopted, recollect the spirit manifested in the debates, and instead of trying [to force] what meaning may be squeezed out of the text, or invented against it, [instead let us] conform to the probable one in which it was passed." - Thomas Jefferson, letter to William Johnson, 12 June 1823

 

[davekc]

No need to complicate the simple. Mistakes absolutely could and do happen with a gun carrying public. Since I am a betting man, I bet those number of "mistakes" is far less than the intentional shootings that we hear about daily.
Always go with the odds.

 

[jjtdrv4u]

Actually, the writers of our great document were talking about the same exact guns the government has at its disposal to use against its citizens. The various state constitutions and Colonial legislations, as well as the founding fathers' own writings on the matter made clear that citizens should have the right to "bear," "carry," or "wear arms" for their own defense and the defense of the State. In 1775, North Carolina's delegation to the Continental Congress, all of whom became prominent state or federal leaders, resolved: "It is the Right of every English Subject to be prepared with Weapons for his Defense."

Just months before writing the Declaration of Independence, Jefferson kept a Commonplace Book where he copied his favorite passages from legal writers to be used in the formation of the language and the ideas of the US Constitution. as well as his own ideas for implementation. This book was the source-book and repertory of Jefferson's ideas on government. Among the passages Jefferson copied word-for-word was Beccaria's denunciation of laws which forbid di portar le armi, which is translated as to "the carrying of arms." That portion of Beccaria which Jefferson copied in Italian (writing "false ideas of utility" in the margin) was worded in the standard English translation of the time as follows:

A Principal source of errors and injustice, are false ideas of utility. For example, That legislator has false ideas of utility, who considers particular more than general convenience; who had rather command the sentiments of mankind, than excite them, and dares say to reason, "Be thou a slave;" who would sacrifice a thousand real advantages, to the fear of an imaginary or trifling inconvenience; who would deprive men of the use of fire, for fear of being burnt, and of water, for fear of being drowned; and who knows of no means of preventing evil but by destroying it.

The laws of this nature, are those which forbid to wear arms, disarming those only who are not disposed to commit the crime which the laws mean to prevent. Can it be supposed, that those who have the courage to violate the most sacred laws of humanity, and the most important of the code, will respect the less considerable and arbitrary injunctions, the violation of which is so easy, and of so little comparative importance? Does not the execution of this law deprive the subject of that personal liberty, so dear to mankind and to the wise legislator; and does it not subject the innocent to all the disagreeable circumstances that should only fall on the guilty? It certainly makes the situation of the assaulted worse, and of the assailants better, and rather encourages than prevents murder, as it requires less courage to attack unarmed than armed persons.

This was all on the heels of British General Thomas Gage, who in 1775, ordered that all private arms in Boston be deposited with the magistrates, supposedly to be stored temporarily and eventually returned to the owners (they never were returned). Those citizens naive enough to comply with the general's edict turned in 1778 muskets, 634 pistols, 973 bayonets, and 38 blunderbusses. As the Declaration of Causes of Taking up Arms passed by the Continental Congress stated: "They accordingly delivered up their arms; but in open violation of honor, ... the governor ordered the arms deposited as aforesaid ... to be seized by a body of soldiers ...." The members of the Continental Congress were not pleased that the government would seize the same weapons of the citizens for use in defense which the government had at its own disposal to use against the citizens.

Not only were the Founding Fathers keenly aware of what it takes to defend against a government, they were also keenly aware of the importance of the individual's right to keep and bear arms for their own self defense. The kinds of arms were never an issue - the only issues were being able to carry arms for self defense, and being able to carry the same arms a government could use against the citizens to deprive those citizens of their liberty. Nothing has changes in the last 300 years in that regard.

"Before a standing army can rule, the people must be disarmed, as they are in almost every country in Europe. The supreme power in America cannot enforce unjust laws by the sword; because the whole body of the people are armed, and constitute a force superior to any band of regular troops." - Noah Webster, An Examination of the Leading Principles of the Federal Constitution, October 10, 1787


"On every occasion [of Constitutional interpretation] let us carry ourselves back to the time when the Constitution was adopted, recollect the spirit manifested in the debates, and instead of trying [to force] what meaning may be squeezed out of the text, or invented against it, [instead let us] conform to the probable one in which it was passed." - Thomas Jefferson, letter to William Johnson, 12 June 1823

u are absolutlely right, and the founding fathers would still crap their pants if they saw all our weapons of mass destruction...lol

 

[Turtle]

u are absolutlely right, and the founding fathers would still crap their pants if they saw all our weapons of mass destruction...lol

They'd crap their pants if they saw a cell phone.

 

[cheri1122]

The question that was asked of him was...."what would you have done in that situation". He responded to that question. I don't see that as vigilante in anyway. It was no different that the people on flight 93 on 911 choosing to fight back. It isn't instigating violence, it was a response of the reaction to the situation.

I did not say that what Carson suggested is vigilanteeism - I said it's not a huge leap from one to the other, in many peoples' minds. Some vigilantees see themselves as doing a job law enforcement isn't, [in their minds] but others see themselves as 'helping' law enforcement do their jobs. Like the woman who shot at a fleeing shoplifter. Was that worth risking the safety of shoppers in the Home Depot parking lot?
With all due respect, what Carson was talking about is quite different from the situation on those flights, where there was zero chance of law enforcement arriving to take control. In a shooting in a public place, [or school], law enforcement could arrive to find multiple shooters, and how do they know which ones to target?
Also, there is the risk of even more innocent civilians being shot by the would be heroes. It could happen, and in such a crazy situation [adrenaline overload in the extreme], it almost surely will.
It would be wonderful if more people had Carson's ability to remain calm under extreme stress, but that's something a neurosurgeon is trained for - us regular people might not be able to shoot what we aim at, in a situation of sudden panic.