If it only saves one life, maybe we shouldn’t ban handguns because one of them was used Monday night in Ohio to save two lives and may help take a robber off the streets.
Kelby Smith, 34, told police he was in the driveway of the home on Crescent Drive just before 9 p.m. when he was approached by a robber.
Smith said that he had his 2-month-old in a car carrier and had to shield him from the robber who held a gun at Smith’s head.
The suspect took Smith’s money and started to flee the scene as he pointed the gun back at Smith and his child.
That’s when Smith pulled out his own gun and fired at the robber.
The robber continued to run, but police said that a man fitting his description arrived at Mount Carmel West a short time later with a gunshot wound.
Smith has a permit to carry his firearm. He and his son were unharmed, but the suspect is likely to face charges if that turns out to be him in the hospital.
Since the armed father saved one life, doesn’t mean—on Joe Biden’s own criteria—that he and Obama should back the hell off their current gun-grab campaign?
Father saved two lives that night, and who knows how many down the road. Armed robbers don’t commit just one crime.
he only shot him once? this is totally not good gun control. the father should be sentence to 3 months at the range, ammo paid by the state.
Despite pointing his weapon at the victim, the thug was running away. If that was enough to get the thug to aim in a different direction, then it was well-done.
I haven’t a clue of the evidence thus far, in this story but — should the entrance wound to the suspect be in his back becomes a rather clouded issue and, it depends viable evidence and what that states legislative rules for fleeing felons may be for private citizens.
In the federal courts, Tennessee v. Garner, the Court reasoned that “The use of deadly force to prevent the escape of all felony suspects, whatever the circumstances, is constitutionally unreasonable.
Just having a gun doesn’t mean that one is protected legally to use deadly force as they see fit. In this case all we seem to have is a statement from the victim ‘claiming’ the suspect was fleeing but turned his gun on the victim for which the evidence supporting that is missing from this report and presumably, there was no firing of the suspect weapon during his regress mentioned in the report to substantiate the victims claim.
While the victim may well be vindicated by at least by police and DA findings, there still remains the issue of federal statutes in which allows for civil proceedings by the suspect to claim he was fleeing and posed no further threat and deadly forced was used in which he sustain injury.
Your point is valid, however, if this line from the article is correct, I think the shooting was still justified:
The suspect took Smith’s money and started to flee the scene as he pointed the gun back at Smith and his child.
So, while the robber was fleeing, he was still threatening the man with a gun. Sounds like a justifiable shooting to me.
Somewhat more to the point, could a jury be seated that would put a father in jail for defending his 2 month old child?
Unless the news report is wildly incorrect on the facts of the case, the father appears to be out of the woods as to prosecution for shooting the armed robber.
Somewhat more to the point, could a jury be seated that would put a father in jail for defending his 2 month old child?
In a sane world, no. However, we no longer live in a sane world.
@ Larry J
Its an interesting case as being reported on here. I only entered the discussion to point out that mowing somebody down comes with a great responsiblity to law for which probably 98% of gun owners including law enforcenebt haven’t a clue or clear understanding of on either the criminal or the civil side of law.
Just an isolated incident – except all these:
http://www.ma-rooned.com/search/label/Dead%20Goblin%20Count
and these:
http://thearmedcitizen.com/wp/category/armed
According to FBI data for 2011 ther was 14.6K plus homicides (44% in the South)if I remember correctly. Down towards the bottom of the data it lists the numbers of violent crimes defended against successfuly. If I remember correctly it was somewhere around around 300 including justifiable by law enforcement.
I don’t feel up to looking it up again, so I admit I may be off slightly. However, in most cases of homicide the victim rarely is given a chance to know they about to be done in before they are overcome and killed as the low successfully defend number would so indicate.
With an estimated 270,000,000 privately owned guns in the U.S. and according to NRA these guns ar legally held by about 60,000,000 people.
So, hers my questions, putting aside the Second Amendment. How many privately owned guns do you people think is needed in the U.S. to bring down the homicide rate in the U.S. to say, only a handful? How many guns do you say is needed to arm the unorganized malitia’s to overthrow the tyrannical government they profess? Seriously!
Who cares how many? As you say, there are a lot of guns out there and there always has been. (There used to be privately owned warships and artillery)
Guns wear out, break, eventually become obsolete and need to be replaced.
Our military and police forces have a lot of guns, why do they keep buying more?
Jay Leno owns 190 cars. No one person rationally “needs” that many cars, in fact I can’t imagine anyone needing more than one or maybe two. But no one advocates that he be prevented from owning them because it’s his money and he’s not hurting anybody. I like to cook and I own 17 kitchen knives… ask any chef and he’ll tell you you only really need 3 good ones. But no one suggests I not be able to own those knives because I’m not stabbing anyone with them. I also own 20,000 comic books and NO ONE needs those. But I like them.
Guns are the same way. The answer to your question is we need to own as many as we want, can afford and will legally use.
And what you fail to appreciate (and, given your snide and dismissive tone I suspect you’ll never understand it) is that the Second Amendment exists not just to overthrow the government but to help make sure it doesn’t become something we need to overthrow in the first place.
You know what I don’t get about people like you? Your whole point of view seems to be rooted in the idea that people can’t be trusted with the power to do violence or they’ll abuse it. Ok, fine, you think people can’t be trusted.
But what the hell do you think the government is comprised of?
“And what you fail to appreciate (and, given your snide and dismissive tone I suspect you’ll never understand it) is that the Second Amendment exists not just to overthrow the government but to help make sure it doesn’t become something we need to overthrow in the first place.”
You captured precisely, a point for which radical extremists of the ‘private’ gun ownership world have not the constitution on your side in their relentless interpretation of the Second Amenent and constitutional settled points of law pertaining to malitia’s to overthorw a government. Out nations controlling document is the United States Constitution and not the essays of 85 different authors commonly referred to as the federalist papers. To sum up many studies conducted on the High Courts use of the essays, it can be summed up in this short passage of verbage: The papers allow for external and internal efforts to define the constitution thus, over periods of time frames, the national sentiments and the sentiments of the high court in these times frames can shift and sway. Do you have any ideas how this kinds of ‘neutral’ conclusion interpests? Ever hear the term “activist court” before? Is an activist court something you advocate no matter whose cause or what political side they serve to benefit? I tend to agree with the numerous scholars who contend that such is destructive to the very constitution for which these essays are used by external and internal interests and jurists of the high court or any court for that matter.
You see, most on this site are of the far right politcal leaning and abhor the high courts rullings on abortion but in the same breath, procalim a presumable right to use the essays in some means for your own causes and benefit. Works both ways it you choose to use the federalist papers through the high court.
For some time now the issue of states militia’s and unorganized mailtia’s have been a settled points of constitutional law and thus, USC 18 Chapter 115. Maybe if you’re reincarnated into some other time of the future it will ‘sway’ to some point more in your favor — who know, maybe, maybe not!
Well, I’m somewhat consoled by your answer because it proves I’m right. You just. Do. Not. Get. It.
OF COURSE it’s “unconstitutional” to overthrow the government. I welcome correction from any historians who know better but I’m pretty sure that no government in history has ever written a law that says “if enough of you don’t like what we’re doing go ahead and shoot us”. And of course it’s “illegal” to overthrow the government; the American Revolution was illegal… hell, the Brits considered it treason.
But the Founders knew that ultimately the Constitution is only words on paper and there might come a day when the government stopped abiding by its limits. And they knew that if that day came a group of unarmed people indignantly shouting “this is wrong!” would be inadequate to stop it. They knew that allowing the government a monopoly on the means to do violence was a recipe for tyranny, and they recognized that people have a natural, inalienable right to resist tyranny. Any government that tries to remove those means is illegitmate, and the Second Amendment exists in part to allow us the means to keep such a government in check or, in extremis, to do away with it.
But you don’t understand that. You’ll never understand that, which is why I suspect you’ll respond to this with another litany of court decisions about the militia that are absolutely irrelevant to my point.
Hey! Mount your posse up and get rollin! See endless numbers of poeple and comments on here advocating its time to roll — sound the call and lead them on!
I’ll take your mockery (witless as it is) as an admission that you have no logical response to anything I’ve said.
Personally I’d be ashamed to walk around every day with a belief system I couldn’t rationally explain or defend, but if you’re comfortable with it who am I to stop you?
In other articles the bad guy was still pointing his gun at them as he was walking away.
Check out http://www.gunsinselfdefense.com with over 300 articles on self defense.