Idiot kid with .22 shot dead by CCW holder


PDA






Berg
June 22, 2005, 02:15 AM
http://www.timesdispatch.com/servlet/Satellite?pagename=RTD/MGArticle/RTD_BasicArticle&c=MGArticle&cid=1031783428357

Teen carried an unloaded rifle
A man in a car shot and killed 14-year-old after he approached

BY JIM NOLAN
TIMES-DISPATCH STAFF WRITER

Jun 22, 2005

RELATED: Police Beat

The teenage boy fatally shot June 12 in Richmond's East End apparently was not as dangerous as he looked to the man who killed him.

Law enforcement sources involved in the case said Rodvon Daymetric Brown, 14, was carrying an unloaded, .22-caliber rifle when he got off his bicycle and approached a 47-year-old man sitting in his car at 24th Street and Fairmount Avenue around 11:40 p.m.

An ammunition magazine from an AK-47, also unloaded, had been duct-taped to the barrel of the rifle, giving it more of an appearance as a deadly assault weapon, the sources said.

The man inside the car, however, had a loaded, 40 mm semiautomatic handgun. He told police that after dropping off a woman at her home, he saw Brown and another boy circling his car on their bicycles. Police said the man told them Brown got off his bicycle and began walking toward the driver's side of his car carrying his weapon.

The man said Brown "threatened him with a gun and attempted to rob him," according to a statement released by police.

Law enforcement sources said the man in the car fired three times, shattering two windows in his vehicle. One of the shots struck Brown in the side of the head, causing him to fall face-first on his gun. He died just over an hour later at VCU Medical Center.

Richmond are consulting with prosecutors on whether to charge the man in connection with the shooting, which is still under investigation.

Police said the man who fired the fatal shots did not flee the scene, but called 911 and waited for police and medical attention to arrive.

Brown was a seventh-grader at Chandler Middle School who lived with his aunt and siblings in the 1400 block of North 23rd Street, just around the corner from where he was fatally wounded.

Family members had said the boy left the house that night to ride his bike because it had been so hot inside. A family spokeswoman had said Brown had never been arrested and was not known by his aunt to carry a weapon.

But last night, a law enforcement source said Brown did, in fact, have a record of arrests as a juvenile. The source did not provide details on the record.

If you enjoyed reading about "Idiot kid with .22 shot dead by CCW holder" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!
wasrjoe
June 22, 2005, 02:18 AM
Family members had said the boy left the house that night to ride his bike because it had been so hot inside. A family spokeswoman had said Brown had never been arrested and was not known by his aunt to carry a weapon.

But last night, a law enforcement source said Brown did, in fact, have a record of arrests as a juvenile. The source did not provide details on the record.

Wow, there's a shocker. :rolleyes:

Cesiumsponge
June 22, 2005, 02:21 AM
The kid deserved that. Of course the family (and news for printing it) had to clarify their kid as innocent and only "out for a nice cool ride in the streets" while carrying a rifle with a magazine duct taped to the muzzle.


As for the 40mm pistol...I wonder if he was carrying beehive flechettes or high explosives.

The more I hear news stories and the "details" contained within, the more I treat them as Weekly World News

Twycross
June 22, 2005, 02:22 AM
The man inside the car, however, had a loaded, 40 mm semiautomatic handgun.
That is some serious firepower. :what: Or do you mean .40 caliber? :D

Alex45ACP
June 22, 2005, 02:35 AM
Excellent, another punk taken off the streets.

Crosshair
June 22, 2005, 02:41 AM
Wow, karma can be a b*tch, can't it. The guy should get off. Nice to hear justice being served.

Glock19Fan
June 22, 2005, 02:52 AM
"Deadly Assault Weapon"?

Oh crap, I keep forgetting regular guns are only half lethal while the scary "Deadly Assault Weapons" are absolute sure to make a kill.

:rolleyes:

Hawkmoon
June 22, 2005, 03:06 AM
No, no, Glockster, the reporter had to write that to be sure the kids weapon wouldn't be confused with the ordinary, garden variety, NON-deadly assault weapons.

KriegHund
June 22, 2005, 03:22 AM
Wow...whata tool.

Trebor
June 22, 2005, 04:03 AM
Here's the e-mail I sent the reporter regarding the "40mm handgun".

Hi Jim,

I just read your story "Teen carried an unloaded rifle," about a June 12 shooting involving a 14 year old shot while allegedly threatening a man with an unloaded .22 rifle.

I'm a former newspaper and radio reporter and current NRA pistol instructor. I wanted to point out a mistake in the article caused by the confusion between "caliber" and "millimeter" when used to describe handgun ammunition.

In one paragrah you describe the man who shoot the teen as having a "...a loaded 40 mm semiautomatic handgun."

This is a error. There is no such thing as a "40 mm handgun."

There is a .40 (caliber) handgun cartridge that is currently quite common. It's proper name is the ".40 S&W" round.

The only "40 mm" weapons are the World War II style anti-aircraft guns that were mounted in double or quad mounts on warships. Mistaking the designation of a modern pistol cartridge with an obsolete anti-aircraft weapon hurts your credibility with people who know better. That would be pretty much anyone who shoots a handgun.

Depending on the exact cartridge under discussion, handgun ammunition is described with either (inch) caliber designations or with (metric) millimeter designations. That's why there are ".45 pistols" and "9mm pistols." The terms "caliber" and "millimeter" are NOT interchangable.

(The word "caliber" is not generally included in the description of the cartridge as it is represented by the "." before the number. The abbreviation "mm" is generally used when describing cartridges designated with the metric system. I think this is AP style as well.)

The term "caliber" describes the nominal internal bore diameter of the handgun as expressed in hundreds of an inch. A .45 (caliber) handgun would have an nominal internal barrel dimension of 45/100th of an inch.

The term "mm" describes the internal bore diameter of a handgun as expressed in the metric system. A "9 mm" handgun has a nominal internal bore diameter of nine millimeters. If this was converted to a caliber designation, it would be a ".35" (caliber) pistol as nine millimeters is about 35/100ths of an inch. However, normally the cartridges are described with one system or the other, not both.

I'm not trying to confuse you or berate you. The "40 mm" pistol error is fairly common in news articles, and is greeted by laughter when spotted by handgun shooters.

pax
June 22, 2005, 04:17 AM
Good letter, Trebor.

****

I'm a little appalled at how ghoulish folks on this thread sound -- as if we're all dancing in the blood of this 14-year-old child.

Yes, yes, I'm aware he presented what looked like a deadly threat. And if the facts are as stated, I believe it was a good shoot. I don't see what else the guy could reasonably have done.

I just wish y'all didn't sound so gleeful about it.

pax
... who just sent her own 13-year-old child to bed an hour ago.

Elmer
June 22, 2005, 04:43 AM
I just wish y'all didn't sound so gleeful about it.

I didn't see any gleefulness in the posts. I think it's more folks hoping they don't jerk the guy around who was forced to shoot.

thorn726
June 22, 2005, 04:56 AM
oooops- quite the hand cannon.

ARgh- ok first this is nothing but bad all around. it doesnt make gun owners look very good, even though this kid was asking for it big time, and well, how long till
he really unloaded on someone, etc.
**i had to edit 2x cuz from your (original poster's) location, plus 23rd st richmond- that could just as easily been here
also the article itself does not state he was a CCW holder, how do we know this? is carrying loaeded weapon legal in your car in VA without permit ?
you know an anti can use this story from 10 angles no matter what.
really lame .

yeah, also got to love the "deadly" assault, more scary, ok- but deadly as opposed to what? smiley .22 ? ?

Alex45ACP
June 22, 2005, 05:23 AM
I'm sorry that this happened, but this kid would have grown up to be just another hoodlum. The guy who shot him should get a medal for doing his civic duty by taking a dangerous criminal off the streets.

crucible
June 22, 2005, 06:33 AM
also the article itself does not state he was a CCW holder, how do we know this? is carrying loaeded weapon legal in your car in VA without permit ?

Open carry is legal in Virginia-no CCW required for that-so yes, he could have very well been legally carrying in his car.

I'm sorry he was put in a situation where he had to take a kid's life in fear of his own. I'm sorry for the kid's loved ones, and to an extent, th kid himself.

I'm not sorry for the example it will set with others who think doing that kind of thing is cool. I'm surely not sorry that what the kid may have done in the future in terms of similar items and worse (as he clearly was advancing his criminal behavior), now won't be done.

Chris

spartacus2002
June 22, 2005, 08:27 AM
Maybe that 40mm handgun was one of these (from Hellboy) :evil:

http://www.blister.jp/images-item-big/page-95.jpg

shermacman
June 22, 2005, 08:57 AM
Pax:
I understand your concern. However, I think the "glee" is just the recognition that this kid would soon grow up to be more aggressive, more hostile and more capable of sticking a real gun with real ammo into someone's face. An old, unloaded .22 with a duct taped magazine was training wheels. The 'glee' is that an innocent person will not be this kid's next step.

Bubbles
June 22, 2005, 09:06 AM
Remember, this story was posted here last week with a very different "spin"...

14-year old shot to death (http://www.timesdispatch.com/servlet/Satellite?pagename=Common%2FMGArticle%2FPrintVersion&c=MGArticle&cid=1031783270727&image=timesdispatch80x60.gif&oasDN=timesdispatch.com)

14-year-old shot to death
A man alleges that the teen tried to rob him in the East End
BY MARK BOWES
TIMES-DISPATCH STAFF WRITER
Tuesday, June 14, 2005

RELATED: Police Beat

A 14-year-old Richmond boy was fatally shot late Sunday after he apparently tried to rob a man at gunpoint in the city's East End, police said.
Rodvon Daymetric Brown, a seventh-grader at Chandler Middle School, died at VCU Medical Center yesterday at 12:55 a.m. The shooting occurred Sunday about 11:40 p.m.

Richmond police said their "initial investigation" indicates the teen was shot in self-defense when he tried robbing a 47-year-old man at 24th Street and Fairmount Avenue. After the shooting, the 47-year-old, whose identity was not released, waited at the scene for officers to arrive, police said.

He told police the teen had "threatened him with a gun and attempted to rob him," according to a police statement. Police said a weapon was recovered from the teen.

Police said they are investigating the death in consultation with the Richmond commonwealth's attorney's office.

Brown's family has a hard time believing the teen was carrying a gun, said Alicia Rasin, a crime-victim's advocate who was consoling family members yesterday. He lived with his mother, an aunt and siblings in the 1400 block of North 23rd Street, right around the corner from where he was killed, Rasin said.

"They just cannot see him having a gun," Rasin said.

Family members said the teen left the house to ride his bicycle last night before the shooting. "They said it was so hot last night, that he got on the bike and just rode around the corner," she said.

"Everybody that knows him" has seen him at one time or another riding his bike through the neighborhood, Rasin said.

Family members "just don't know why" someone would shoot him, she said.

Rasin said the teen's aunt, who helped raise Rodvon since he was 4, never knew him to be in possession of a gun. "He's never been arrested, never been in any trouble," Rasin said.

Grief counselors were made available yesterday to Brown's schoolmates at Chandler. The teen's guardian called the school yesterday morning to report that Brown "was shot and killed as he walked home along Fairmount Avenue," school spokeswoman Treeda Smith said in an advisory sent to Richmond School Board members.

In an interview late yesterday, Smith said she had received no additional information about the boy's death. The initial report the school received came from the teen's mother, Smith said.

"I'm sick and tired of saying I'm tired," Rasin said of Richmond's latest homicide. "I'm tired of saying, 'When is this going to be enough?'"

Contact Mark Bowes at (804) 649-6450 or mbowes@timesdispatch.com

hcker2000
June 22, 2005, 09:27 AM
Dang media. When will people learn not to trust them. Could just be the internet too who knows. Has any one tryed to get an offical copy of the artical from the paper?

dk-corriveau
June 22, 2005, 09:29 AM
Isn't one of the tenets of CCW that if you can flee from the danger you should do so? Obviously there is not enough detail in any of the articles to say if that was a possibility, but unless his car was blocked in by other vehicles, it seems like he could have simply driven off without incident.

nico
June 22, 2005, 09:36 AM
Not that I'm happy a kid is dead, but when I was that age a kid who was 14 and in 7th grade (1 or 2 years behind) wasn't exactly the model of good behavior. Add to that the fact that he was out at 11:40 with a gun and I think there needs to be some accountability with the family.

pythonguy
June 22, 2005, 09:39 AM
A sad story all around, a 14 year old kid out at 11:40pm is not good, no less he is carrying a rifle. The parents saying he is a good kid and they never saw him with a gun is BS, kids hide everything from their parents. It is of course, tragic when any child dies, you cannot predict he will grow up to be a criminal, kids do stupid things. The "Family" now so concerned should have been more concerned when their child was alive and not let him go out out so late when nothing good can happen, but that is now a moot point. If it went down as described and the guy was legal to carry and was held up at gunpoint, what else can you expect then the kid gets shot, the armed citizen feared for his life. The anti's will use this as an example that ordinary citizens shouldn't carry and a trained LEO would have used more discretion, but the law is the law and none seem broken.

dolanp
June 22, 2005, 09:47 AM
Notice how the gun is not so evil when the kid is carrying it? Poor kid was just hot in his house and wanted to go out for a ride, happened to be carrying his unloaded .22 rifle, as an innocent boy does, when a man with a terrible "40mm" handgun shot and killed the poor boy. And of course in chimes the family saying the boy wouldn't do that, then the police saying well, er, um, yeah he does in fact have a record. :rolleyes:

Frandy
June 22, 2005, 09:58 AM
deleted

Missashot
June 22, 2005, 10:02 AM
Well, in my opinion, first of all a 14-year-old kid has absolutely no business being on the street at 11:40 at night. And then to ride a bicycle around carrying a rifle with magazines taped to it, I would think that he was already a hoodlum not just waiting to grow up into one. I am sorry to say this, but I think he got what was coming to him. He wasnít very smart to threaten others with a gun. I would like to think that I would do the same thing if someone threatens me with a firearm. I hope that if indeed the facts were accurate, that the man who shot the kid is not charged.

critter
June 22, 2005, 10:12 AM
I feel sorry for the victim in this case. And be sure to understand that the victim in this case is the legally armed citizen who was forced to cleanse the gene pool of a young but up and coming armed paracitic thug preying upon society. Sad all around.

Lone_Gunman
June 22, 2005, 10:15 AM
WHERE in the articles does it say the man who did the shooting was a CCW holder?

Did he have a permit, or did he just have a gun?

Henry Bowman
June 22, 2005, 10:15 AM
Am I the only one who wonders about the victim's potential hearing loss. It sounds like he had to fire from within his vehicle (two windows broken). Even if it was a mere .40 caliber (and not a 40 mm), he could (would) easily suffer permanent hearing damage.

dolanp
June 22, 2005, 10:35 AM
Seems like an argument for thug control to me. One thug was controlled.

4v50 Gary
June 22, 2005, 10:49 AM
If the kid didn't have a gun, he wouldn't have gone out to commit an armed robbery. That he did meant he had an instant meeting with his kharma and now is rehabilitated through reincarnation. I won't weep for him nor should society. We just saved hundred of thousands of dollars in future court costs, jail time & expenses as well as prison time & expenses.

Leatherneck
June 22, 2005, 10:50 AM
WHERE in the articles does it say the man who did the shooting was a CCW holder?

Did he have a permit, or did he just have a gun? No matter in Virginia. As previously mentioned, citizens are allowed to open-carry in a car or walking about.

TC

Bubbles
June 22, 2005, 10:57 AM
WHERE in the articles does it say the man who did the shooting was a CCW holder?

To me, this is the tipoff:

The man said Brown "threatened him with a gun and attempted to rob him," according to a statement released by police.

Police said the man who fired the fatal shots did not flee the scene, but called 911 and waited for police and medical attention to arrive.


These are straight out of the training course I took to obtain my Virginia CHL... along with having a good defense attorney on speed-dial, and p!ssing in my pants if at all possible ..."I was so scared I wet myself"...

thatguy
June 22, 2005, 11:04 AM
Rodvon Daymetric Brown? Maybe if parents would stop given their kids such bizarre names they wouldn't act so weird.

No winners here. Kid was bad news, no doubt about it. At 14 he's packing heat and committing armed robbery. What's he going to be doing at 16? Or 18? He was a criminal and he was making violence his way of life. It was only a matter of time before he killed someone.

Funny how the family is always shocked and denies the kid was violent or had criminal tendencies. Maybe that's what happens when the parents are nowhere to be found (kid being raised by aunt and "other family members") and there's no apparent supervision (had a gun, out late at night, etc).

At 14 he could have been physically large enough to pass for an adult. In any event the gun he carried made him an adult.

Sad situation but the kid, and his family, made it happen.

Sean Smith
June 22, 2005, 11:06 AM
If we assume the articles are correct, and the kid was trying to rob/carjack/what-have-you this guy, I don't think we can be sentimental about the kid getting killed. He was a life-threatening criminal who got eliminated. Hell, there are entire battalions of little kids with AK-47s in Africa that are at least as good as the grown-ups at perpetrating awful atrocities as a matter of course; the assumption that his youth negates in any way the potential threat a kid presents with a gun is stupid and dangerous.

I do think it is tragic in a general way that our society produces such people in the first place. But once faced with one in that situation, killing them in self-defense is absolutley ethical.

As for gun control, when anybody can even show a correlation between gun control and violent crime rates, I'll consider listening. Until then, they should just shut up and go back to talking to their pets through an animal psychic, or whatever else it is that post-hippie idiots do nowadays.

dev_null
June 22, 2005, 11:09 AM
> Rodvon Daymetric Brown

Sounds to me like a severe case of acute nomenclature.

38SnubFan
June 22, 2005, 11:52 AM
I know I sound harsh for saying this, as it's still wrong for any young person to be taken away from us so soon in life, but I feel no remorse for the young man.

If facts are true that this was an attempted armed robbery, then the young man, by his actions and possession of the weapon, is subject to the same terms and consequences of his actions as any other person, up to and including being shot and killed in self-defense by his would-be victim.

Crime knows no age.

My prayers are sent to the families of both parties in this case: The young man's, for they are having to grieve the loss of a young life; and the victim's, for he's going to be suffering a heavy emotional toll for the rest of his life. Just so that doesn't sound hypocritical compared to my first statement in this post - it's sympathy for the death, not remorse for the 14-year-old's actions.

And as I'm ready to expect, Flame me away!

-38SnubFan

shermacman
June 22, 2005, 11:54 AM
Rodvon Daymetric Brown
Chlamydia

And the two twins "Syphilis and Gonorrhea"

JohnBT
June 22, 2005, 12:00 PM
Here's a letter to the editor from this morning's paper about the 6/13 shooting:


Victim's Advocate Ignored Victim

Editor, Times-Dispatch: Regarding the article, "14-Year-Old Shot to Death":
I have to wonder why "crime-victim advocate" Alicia Rasin wasn't consoling the 47-year-old man who was put in the horrible position of having to defend his life with deadly force, rather than the family of the armed predator whose failed attack cost him his life. Dennis J. O'Connor. prince george.

Yanus
June 22, 2005, 12:02 PM
Darwin Award nominee............ ;)

TheDutchman
June 22, 2005, 12:23 PM
They are all good kids who never got in trouble, and don't know why they are now dead. Maybe because of bad parents.

one-shot-one
June 22, 2005, 12:48 PM
"appearance as a deadly assault weapon"
as opposed to a non-deadly .22 ?!?!?!? :banghead:

dolanp
June 22, 2005, 12:58 PM
No remember, it's the curved magazine that made it look deadly. Make no mistake about it!

Double Maduro
June 22, 2005, 01:06 PM
Pax,

I agree that there tends to be an "instant Karma" mentallity here sometimes. We need to remember that no matter how flawed this teen was, that he was still loved by people who will suffer and miss him.

The others who will suffer are the person who shot him and his family.

The wasting of any life is a tragedy.

Yes, yes, I'm aware he presented what looked like a deadly threat. And if the facts are as stated, I believe it was a good shoot. I don't see what else the guy could reasonably have done.

OH, I don't know what else he could have done, oh wait, what about put the car in gear and leave. I don't know all the circumstances but if you are sitting in your car and see a couple of kids, or adults, approaching and at least one of them has a gun, put the car in gear and get the heck out of there.

DM

Ole-sailor
June 22, 2005, 01:17 PM
Those are the magic words that will be asked of the shooter!

A long gun with a curved mag. and another taped to the BBL. certainly goes a long way towards lending credibality to his answer; YES.

This is going to be another great chapter in the COST of carrying a firearm for self defense.

A 14 year old kid is dead!

Legal cost for the shooter to prove himself "Not Guilty of Murder"

Legal cost for the shooter to defend against the additional Civil lawsuit; (Mom and Dad, great parents that they were, need compensation for the loss of their child)

The cost of therapy for the shooter, he will be loosing sleep over killing the kid now that he finds out that the weapon was unloaded.

The next gun control law, you know that the LIBS will dream up something.

SHOOTING THE KID: NO RIGHT AND NO WRONG the circumstances at the time indicated that it was necessary to the shooter. We can all Monday morning Quarter Back the incident: But we were not in the car at 11:40 PM with an assilant pounding a weapon on the window demanding money.

Master Blaster
June 22, 2005, 01:30 PM
OH, I don't know what else he could have done, oh wait, what about put the car in gear and leave. I don't know all the circumstances but if you are sitting in your car and see a couple of kids, or adults, approaching and at least one of them has a gun, put the car in gear

Boy I love that old 20/20 hindsight, Lets suppose for a minute that with the boy standing there the 47 year old man did just that. Now he has just run over 1 or possibly two innocent children out riding their bikes. The .22 disappears when the crowd of angry neighbors arrives. Now if the man drives off, he has committed a hit and run on two poor innocents and is looking at a jail term. If the man pulls up a short distance away the angry mob drags him from his car and pummels him to death with feet sticks and rocks.
Both the above scenarios assume the rifle is unloaded which it is.

Now lets assume the rifle was loaded since we have entered the realm of Monday morning speculation. As the 47 year old starts the engine the Boy fires 5 shots into his heart from point blank range and he is dead.
The boy and his friend now have the mans wallet, his car, and his .40 handgun so they decide to knock off a gas station, they then shoot the 22 yearold college student at the counter, and later tell the police " we were only looking to steal some candy and the gun "It Just Went OFF"

Or the 47 year old like a good bliss ninny who is unarmed gets out of the car and gives our 14 YO and his friend his wallet and car keys. Off drives the boy and about 30 minutes later going 85mph he runs a red light and hits and kills a car load of women and children, or teenagers on their way home from a prayer meeting.

I vote the 47 YO did the right thing, since he had no way to know if the gun was loaded or the 14 yearold miscreant would or would not shoot him dead, and only about 1.5 seconds to decide what to do.

Double Maduro
June 22, 2005, 01:43 PM
Master Blaster,

You seem to be selectively blind.

In my original post I stated that I didn't know all of the circumstances, it appears that you do and that the only reasonable thing to do was to shoot the bg. That may be. but the news story stated.

Law enforcement sources involved in the case said Rodvon Daymetric Brown, 14, was carrying an unloaded, .22-caliber rifle when he got off his bicycle and approached a 47-year-old man sitting in his car at 24th Street and Fairmount Avenue around 11:40 p.m.


and this,

He told police that after dropping off a woman at her home, he saw Brown and another boy circling his car on their bicycles. Police said the man told them Brown got off his bicycle and began walking toward the driver's side of his car carrying his weapon.

This would make it seem like the 47 year old saw them approaching and might have had time to leave.

Yes, I agree, shooting the bg is an option. It is seldom, if ever, the only option. It may or may not be the best option. And like I tried to say in my post, when I said I don't know all the circumstances I don't know all of the circumstances.

Now why don't you go wipe down and curry comb the high horse, put him in his stall and grain him, I think he has had enough exercise for today.

DM

peacefuljeffrey
June 22, 2005, 01:47 PM
I'm a little appalled at how ghoulish folks on this thread sound -- as if we're all dancing in the blood of this 14-year-old child.

Yes, yes, I'm aware he presented what looked like a deadly threat. And if the facts are as stated, I believe it was a good shoot. I don't see what else the guy could reasonably have done.

I just wish y'all didn't sound so gleeful about it.

pax

Maybe "gleeful" is not the most appropriate word, but it does please me when I read that a violent criminal scumbag of any age has been removed from the midst of us, the law-abiding honest people. Think of it as the feeling you get when you're on a sports team and your team scores against your opponents. You feel a bit of glee. Only in this case, the stakes are much higher, hence the "glee" is that much more justified. This gang-banger-wannabe with the deuce-deuce taped with a bigger magazine was asking for trouble and got it. He could easily have been equipped with a loaded firearm and used that against the victim here. Luckily he was not. But as we all know, we are justified in reacting with deadly force when a weapon is presented as a threat, and it matters naught when after-the-fact it turns out to have been unloaded/fake etc. We are not expected to make those determinations while under duress.

This appears to be a case where Darwinism actually was in effect, since I will assume (though there can be no certainty with his ilk) that the decedent had not yet reproduced. [:)]

The only person I feel sad for is the victim -- and by "victim" I surely do not mean the kid who died. And call me a hardass bastard, but I don't even feel for his family. In this case, it seems pretty clear that they bear some culpability for what occurred -- and at the least, I don't believe that they were unaware of his criminal tendencies. What, did he leave the house on the bicycle empty-handed and pick the rifle up from where he stashed it in the bushes? :scrutiny:

The least they could have done was buy a freakin' air conditioner! Seems that would have alleviated the need for the kid to go out to rob someo-- er, get some cool night air. :rolleyes:

-Jeffrey

wmenorr67
June 22, 2005, 01:58 PM
Yes the gun was unloaded but how does the guy in the car know that? Is he supposed to ask the kid if the rifle is loaded or maybe the kid was carrying a sign that said "Hey don't shoot me, this is unloaded. I'm just trying to look dangerous." None of us were there. There are at least two sides to every story and in this case we will never hear one of them.

Master Blaster
June 22, 2005, 02:30 PM
NO my friend read my post again, I was objecting and responding to your second guessing of the situation and your catagorical statement that the man should have and easily could have driven off..

I DID not second guess what the man did.

So I offerred a few possible scenarios

Double Maduro
June 22, 2005, 02:36 PM
wmenorr67,

None of us were there. There are at least two sides to every story and in this case we will never hear one of them.

Well said. We will only hear from the intended victim and the bg's friend, both of them have vested interests.

Oklahoma National Guard---1/279th INF BN, 45th INF BDE

Thank you, and all the others who choose to serve.

DM

Double Maduro
June 22, 2005, 03:04 PM
Master Blaster,

I went back and re-read your post.

Yes, you were putting forth hipotheticals.

Here is another one.

The intended victim puts the car in drive and runs over the youth with the gun. He stops and a crowd gathers. The crowd applauds him for removing a predator from their midst. He lived only a couple blocks away and this would have been prime territory for him to hunt.

Some evidence of the emotions of any crowd that may have gathered is the fact that the intended victim after shooting the bg, stayed at the scene until the police arrived and didn't find it necessary to defend himself from the gathering crowd.

Another scenario.

He put the car in drive and left the area. When he got to a safe place he called the police and gave them a description of the bgs. They knew from previous contact who they were. When they confronted him, the bg, he put down his unloaded weapon and surrendered.

The possibilities are endless and since none of us were there and only have a news report to go on, we will never know what the "BEST" response was. In this case the intended victim did what he thought he had to in order to protect his life. You can't fault him for that, and I certainly don't. However, the way the story is reported, it appears he may have had an opportunity to leave, maybe, maybe not. But again, we weren't there and will never know.

As with all of these reports, there are so many variables and conflicting stories that we, sitting in the safety of our own homes, cannot make a truly informed decision as to the rightness or wrongness of the intended victims actions. We can, however, make an informed decision about the rightness or wrongness of the bgs actions. Not only were they wrong in their actions but fatally stupid too boot.

DM

JohnBT
June 22, 2005, 03:06 PM
I wouldn't be surprised to see a teenager with an AK in that neighborhood. Come to think of it there've been a number of shootings and killings involving them all over the city including one maybe 20 blocks from me.
________________

I see the court is dragging another case out. This happened not too far away from the case under discussion. These 'kids' also should have been at home when they attacked a couple sitting in a city park. Check out their ages.

"Libby Hill attackers sentencing continued.

Looking at the Virginia Courts Case Information (Richmond City Circuit), it appears that yesterday's sentencing was continued until July 19th.

The four defendants are brothers Kelvin Leon Lightfoot, 17, and Kenard Rawshawn Lightfoot, 16, and cousins Rashard Leon Garnett, 15, and Travon Montra Garnett, 14. They pleaded guilty to charges of rape, sodomy, abduction with intent to defile and robbery. Each count carries a maximum penalty of life in prison. The judge had originally set sentencing for May 23."

svtruth
June 22, 2005, 03:11 PM
How can you hide a rifle from the other members of your household?

peacefuljeffrey
June 22, 2005, 03:12 PM
"Kelvin," "Kenard," "Rashard," "Travon"... :rolleyes:

I postulate that a lot of crimes could be prevented if we just banned people from naming their little miscreants thuswise. 'Cause, you know, it seems awful common to read that the criminals had names like ... these.

-Jeffrey

Carlos
June 22, 2005, 03:19 PM
The kid got what was coming to him. Simple.

Glad I don't have to support his worthless but in jail. :cuss:

Cosmoline
June 22, 2005, 03:20 PM
I really want one of those 40 mm handguns :D

Double Maduro
June 22, 2005, 03:22 PM
peaceful,

I agree, but.

One of my friends is named Laverne, and he has never tried to hold anyone up at gun point. LOL.

I have noticed that there seems to be a number of people named John Wayne "whatever" that have done dastardly deeds.

DM

Master Blaster
June 22, 2005, 03:33 PM
How can you hide a gun from members of your household???

Well it could have been hidden outside the house, it was most likely stollen, since there is no place where a 14 yearold can legally buy a gun, ammo is probably harder to come by though. I would not be surprised if this child is a member of a gang and they provided the gun. This could have been his first "job" for them.

Unfortunately where I work we see this kind of stuff everyday. Folks on this board would be Horrified and appalled how people treat their children.

Mom has 4 kids 15, 13, 11, 9 and a baby on the way she was in jail on a 5 year sentance for distribution of drugs but got paroled last year, so now she is pregnant again and dealing crack or hanging out with a boyfriend dealing. The kids are living with various relatives Aunt, Grandma etc. All of the kids were born addicted to crack, or have Fetal alcohol syndrome. All are in special ed behind 2 or more grades. All have been arrested for theft, some for dealing armed robbery and assault.

I saw a case where two 8 year old twin brothers almost beat a homeless man to death, they told the police officer who arrested them: "they did it for FUN, and because he smelled bad." They are now 16 and have been arrrested numerous times for robbery, assault, drug dealing and possession of firearms and other deadly weapons, they are in drug treatment and have lived in several Residential treatment centers and foster homes. Mom is in prison again, so they are living with grandmom who has 6 of her offspring's children. They are in section 8 housing. Their social worker reports that they are non compliant with treatment, and when she visited the kids ages 8-16 years were smoking a couple of joints and sharing a bottle of wine in the living room.

These children will never be productive members of society, they will either be killed, kill somone or end up in jail, or like their mother. These "children" would kill you for $10 so they can go buy another rock or a bag of weed.

Its truely scarry and very sad as well.

richyoung
June 22, 2005, 03:40 PM
However, the way the story is reported, it appears he may have had an opportunity to leave, maybe, maybe not. But again, we weren't there and will never know.


I am unaware of ANY car, not even a Vette, that can outrun a AK round. Point what looks like an assault rifle at me and try to jack me, and you get capped.

cdma
June 22, 2005, 04:03 PM
Ah, screw it.

Sistema1927
June 22, 2005, 04:31 PM
I'm a little appalled at how ghoulish folks on this thread sound -- as if we're all dancing in the blood of this 14-year-old child.

14 year olds who threaten armed robbery at night NEED to be taken out of the gene pool.

My heart goes out to the true victim of this event, the man who had to take the life of a 14 year old while protecting his own. I am certain that this will haunt him for the rest of his days.

peacefuljeffrey
June 22, 2005, 04:33 PM
peaceful,

I agree, but.

One of my friends is named Laverne, and he has never tried to hold anyone up at gun point. LOL.


DM


Maduro,

Does he wear an embroidered "L" on the left chest of his sweaters? :p


-Jeffrey

cdma
June 22, 2005, 04:59 PM
14 year olds who threaten armed robbery at night NEED to be taken out of the gene pool.

Has there been some followup to this? Is there any proof that the kid threatened the guy?

If it's just his word on what happened, it's just as likely that he made that part up after shooting the kid.

Hook686
June 22, 2005, 05:08 PM
Pax wrote:

Yes, yes, I'm aware he presented what looked like a deadly threat. And if the facts are as stated, I believe it was a good shoot. I don't see what else the guy could reasonably have done.

Why was just driving away not an option ? Run away ... then run further away is the advice I read in violent confrontational situations. I'm not sure why that was not an option here, as the shooter seemed to have ample time and opportunity to simply drive away.

Hook686

VTKFJoe
June 22, 2005, 05:09 PM
How can you hide a rifle from the other members of your household?

Start with a household that lets kids out to ride bikes close to midnight on a schoolnight. Maybe they werent all that observant, heck they couldnt even remember that their kid had a juvenile record when they were talking to the RTD.

I havent seen pictures of this kid but some 14 year olds look like men. In this same neighborhood, last year, a group of kids 1-5 years older than this kid raped and beat a couple.

Man I hope I never have to shoot a kid, or anyone for that matter.

Joe

JohnBT
June 22, 2005, 05:21 PM
"ample time and opportunity to simply drive away."

Time it yourself. Turn the key until the engine catches, shift into gear, release the parking brake, etc.

How many rounds can you fire from a gun in, say, 2 seconds? You have fired a gun before, right? ;)

John...I'll be keeping an eye out for updates.

torpid
June 22, 2005, 05:23 PM
peacefuljeffrey
"Kelvin," "Kenard," "Rashard," "Travon"... :rolleyes:

I postulate that a lot of crimes could be prevented if we just banned people from naming their little miscreants thuswise. 'Cause, you know, it seems awful common to read that the criminals had names like ... these.

Ok, well in that case I vote for "Eric" and "Dylan" to go as well. :(


.

Too Many Choices!?
June 22, 2005, 05:34 PM
1. Being a parent means knowing what your child is involved in(and with whom) at whatever cost :banghead: !
2. Parents need to BE parents, and if you don't want to be parents, DON"T HAVE KIDS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

14 yrd old kids don't belong awake at 11:40, let alone riding the streets(with or without a weapon:fire:...
Last I checked, right about 13-16(when the outside world calls) is when you really find out how good of a parent you were :uhoh: :( !!

cdma
June 22, 2005, 05:35 PM
"Kelvin," "Kenard," "Rashard," "Travon"...

I postulate that a lot of crimes could be prevented if we just banned people from naming their little miscreants thuswise. 'Cause, you know, it seems awful common to read that the criminals had names like ... these.

Same goes for "Jeffrey" (http://www.pameganslaw.state.pa.us/SearchResults.aspx?Search=Name&FirstName=jeffrey&MiddleName=&LastName=&dt=JCFFCFDDI4HNGENID4da)

JohnBT
June 22, 2005, 05:36 PM
http://www.timesdispatch.com/servlet/Satellite?blobcol=urlmainpicture&blobheader=image/gif&blobkey=id&blobtable=MGImage&blobwhere=1031775665372&ssbinary=true

The area under discussion is on the east end of town, just to the left of "Nine Mile Road". Note that #4 is the Fairfield Court housing project and #3 is Creigton Court.

This is a map of murder locations for 2000-2003.

Ala Dan
June 22, 2005, 05:53 PM
Another example of a "kid in the hood" playing the dangerous game of
"STOP N' ROB". We must take back our streets and our
neighborhood's from these types of punk's. :uhoh: :D

goalie
June 22, 2005, 06:06 PM
If it's just his word on what happened, it's just as likely that he made that part up after shooting the kid.

Um, no, it isn't. The likelyhood of an armed citizen defending him/herself in Richmond is not the same as the likelyhood of someone going out and murdering someone and then planting the rifle/taped magazine that they carry around as a "throw gun" just in case they want to murder someone.

dev_null
June 22, 2005, 06:13 PM
Maduro,

Does he wear an embroidered "L" on the left chest of his sweaters?

More importantly, is your real name "Shirley?" :D

Trebor
June 22, 2005, 06:39 PM
The reporter e-mailed me back. He thanked me for the information and said he got the "40 mm" handgun info from his source. He said he didn't know enough to know it was incorrect.

Double Maduro
June 22, 2005, 07:37 PM
Peaceful and Dev,

No, he doesn't have L's on the left or any part of his sweaters as far as I know. :neener:

Actually he is a Junior, his first and middle names are Kenneth Laverne. I origianally knew him as Vern, but after his dad died he started going by Ken. It's getting so you can't tell your players without a score card.

Also, Don't call me Shirley. :p

DM

cdma
June 22, 2005, 07:42 PM
Um, no, it isn't. The likelyhood of an armed citizen defending him/herself in Richmond is not the same as the likelyhood of someone going out and murdering someone and then planting the rifle/taped magazine that they carry around as a "throw gun" just in case they want to murder someone.

You're probably right about that.

But until there's some more investigation, it doesn't rule out some scenario such as the kid's riding around with his unloaded, duct-taped rifle, and cuts off the driver. The driver and the kid exchange words, tensions escalate, kid gets shot.

Driver realizes what he's done and spins a tale.

If the kid was threatening the guy then he got what was coming to him. The article doesn't give that much information.

cdma
June 22, 2005, 07:53 PM
And maybe the guy pulled out his gun first, the kid tries getting away, guy shoots through the glass to nail the little punk who shouldn't have been out at 11:40 anyway, because any kid out at that hour is up to no good. Let's give the driver a medal for blowing away a kid who would have grown up to be a vicious criminal because he already had an arrest record and was probably taking part in a gang initiation the night he died. There. I accounted for the broken windows.

Who knows? Maybe the kid did have an arrest record for a string of violent crimes and he was trying to rob the driver. Maybe he was just a kid who'd had a few brushes with the law who was out using the rifle/mag combo as a toy gun with his buddies.

We don't have a full picture of what went on and, in that light, the rush to deify the driver and make all these assumptions about the kid, who he was, what he was doing out at that hour, and what he would grow up to be is a little troubling.

DarkKnight01
June 22, 2005, 08:13 PM
He told police that after dropping off a woman at her home

Im guessing this could be one of many reasons he didnt decide to flee, Perhaps this woman was still on her way into her home and him fleeing would have made her the next victim... Thats my guess, and I would have reacted the exact same way...

ClonaKilty
June 22, 2005, 08:42 PM
In any case, the shooter is SOL. Very very few people are given CCWs, especially in cities like Richmond, and carrying a gun in a car in CA is absolutely verboten. Just having the gun means he broke the law and will forfeit his ability to own a gun (and protect himself) ever again.

I'm interested to see if the DA pursues this (likely will), and if so what the jury decides. Could go either way: guilty (sympathy for another 14 year old killed in Richmond), not guilty (empathy for a neighbor who was scared for his life just driving in their neighborhood).

Mannlicher
June 22, 2005, 08:54 PM
A pox on all those bleeding hearts that value the criminal more than his victim. A pox on those folks sitting in judgement, behind their nice, safe computer, and ignoring the fact that the assault victim had to make an instant decision, based on the best info he had at the time. I think he made the right choice.
I have zero feelings for the dead perp's family, and even less for the little miscreant.

Too Many Choices!?
June 22, 2005, 09:09 PM
What color is the sky in your world :uhoh: ?

And no CDMA, not every kid out at 11:40 at night is up to no good, but I suspect that nine times out of ten, the ones that have no adult supervision, are carrying a weapon, and have a criminal history are :banghead: :what: !

Standing Wolf
June 22, 2005, 09:23 PM
A pox on all those bleeding hearts that value the criminal more than his victim.

If that was a motion, please consider it seconded.

pax
June 22, 2005, 10:21 PM
The reporter e-mailed me back. He thanked me for the information and said he got the "40 mm" handgun info from his source. He said he didn't know enough to know it was incorrect.
Rob:

Lots of ignorance in the world, but you just removed a tiny little bit of it. I'd say that's a good day's work.

pax

The problem with most folks ain't their ignorance, it's that they know so much that just ain't so. -- Mark Twain

Rebeldon
June 22, 2005, 10:31 PM
It's the classic "he was a good kid" rhetoric. It sounds like the dead punk's family is in denial about his delinquency. They don't want to face the fact that their lack of parenting contributed to their child's death. They would have a law-abiding citizen charged with murder in a feeble attempt to alieve them of their guilt. If he has any younger brothers, I hope they learn from their older brother's mistakes. The parents don't seem up to the task.

RRTX
June 22, 2005, 10:51 PM
In any case, the shooter is SOL. Very very few people are given CCWs, especially in cities like Richmond, and carrying a gun in a car in CA is absolutely verboten. Just having the gun means he broke the law and will forfeit his ability to own a gun (and protect himself) ever again.

I'm interested to see if the DA pursues this (likely will), and if so what the jury decides. Could go either way: guilty (sympathy for another 14 year old killed in Richmond), not guilty (empathy for a neighbor who was scared for his life just driving in their neighborhood).

I think you are confused as to the location, this was Richmond, Virginia not California.

Hardtarget
June 22, 2005, 11:01 PM
I understand how some feel it being somewhat "wrong" to express a less than sorrowfull response at the death of this 14 yr old. It is sad that a 14 yr old got himself into that situation...however, I just think he was in training for bigger and better criminal efforts not very far in the future. I point to the events here in Nashville, Tn. ( 6/18), in which a 15 yr old carjacked a vehicle, drove to the mall to steal a pair of tennis shoes,shoot and kill the security guard, drive across the parking lot to rob a man( shooting his victims 9 yr old son in the face), then head back to his 'hood'...oh yes, as he passed a woman out walking her dog he shot her in the back. This punk has had 20 "encounters" with law enforcement and likes his " street credit" . All that to say this...we're better off without these punks early. Before they start putting notches on their guns and building up their "street credit"
I feel worse for the man that shot this punk...the law offers no protection to us when we are forced to defend ourselves.
Mark.

SHOOT1SAM
June 22, 2005, 11:09 PM
cdma wrote: Who knows? Maybe the kid did have an arrest record for a string of violent crimes and he was trying to rob the driver. Maybe he was just a kid who'd had a few brushes with the law who was out using the rifle/mag combo as a toy gun with his buddies.

We don't have a full picture of what went on and, in that light, the rush to deify the driver and make all these assumptions about the kid, who he was, what he was doing out at that hour, and what he would grow up to be is a little troubling.

cdma,
There is a new pill out, it's called.....reality. Please, check with your Dr.


ClonaKilty wrote: In any case, the shooter is SOL. Very very few people are given CCWs, especially in cities like Richmond, and carrying a gun in a car in CA is absolutely verboten. Just having the gun means he broke the law and will forfeit his ability to own a gun (and protect himself) ever again.

I'm interested to see if the DA pursues this (likely will), and if so what the jury decides. Could go either way: guilty (sympathy for another 14 year old killed in Richmond), not guilty (empathy for a neighbor who was scared for his life just driving in their neighborhood).

CK: This happened in Richmond Virginia, not **********.

Sam

Joey2
June 23, 2005, 12:22 AM
Once again the gene pool gets a thinning.

Elmer
June 23, 2005, 12:39 AM
Who knows? Maybe the kid did have an arrest record for a string of violent crimes and he was trying to rob the driver. Maybe he was just a kid who'd had a few brushes with the law who was out using the rifle/mag combo as a toy gun with his buddies.

Perhaps the youth had just found the rifle, and was just bringing it to the closest adult.......

:rolleyes:

cdma
June 23, 2005, 01:09 AM
Deleted. Why bother?

peacefuljeffrey
June 23, 2005, 02:23 AM
Who knows? Maybe the kid did have an arrest record for a string of violent crimes and he was trying to rob the driver. Maybe he was just a kid who'd had a few brushes with the law who was out using the rifle/mag combo as a toy gun with his buddies.

Oh, okay, and the kind of moron who goes out with a real gun to play with it as a toy is the kind you feel alright having running around in public?

I'm just as happy that someone that friggin' dumb is not around anymore. How long before someone that goddamned stupid causes someone innocent a measure of undeserved harm?

-Jeffrey

Justin
June 23, 2005, 02:34 AM
It's getting a mite bit bile-riffic in here.

JohnBT
June 23, 2005, 08:46 AM
"Very very few people are given CCWs, especially in cities like Richmond, "

Wrong. All you have to do is fill out the form and pay the $50.

And carrying a loaded handgun in your car is legal in Virginia as long as it's not concealed. IOW, as long as you leave it on the seat in plain view. The dash is legal, but a real attention getter.

JT

BeLikeTrey
June 23, 2005, 09:42 AM
Lets calm the discussion Por favor :)

about the driving off?

2 kids circling only one gets off his bike.

for all we know the unarmed kid was on his bike in front of the car.

So by "driving off" are we advocating running over the unarmed kid to leave the armed kid time to ditch the gun and put on the tears? then we'd really be in for it.

I'm betting (though we all know we weren't there) that guy looks for exit, blocked by kid # 2 and decides to deal with immediate and more pressing threat.- (since he is probably now at point blank having used the guys decision time to get in close.)- unarmed probably fled when the victim fired...

DarkKnight01
June 23, 2005, 10:46 AM
Im still thinking he was protecting the woman he was dropping off...

Quinch
June 24, 2005, 12:46 AM
Lavern, or Laverne, is an old french name.

"Rodvon" and "Daymetric" are not. Although the "Daymetric" has a european feel... :D

toivo
June 24, 2005, 01:40 AM
There's a lot left out of this story that might sway things one way or the other, but from what's there it sounds like the guy in the car really had no choice. How does he know the kid's gun is empty? It's still armed robbery in the eyes of the law, and rightly so. A legal decision from N. Carolina states:

"When a person perpetrates a robbery by brandishing an instrument which appears to be a firearm, or other dangerous weapon, in the absence of any evidence to the contrary, the law will presume the instrument to be what his conduct represents it to be - a firearm or other dangerous weapon."

I don't know about other states, but I believe this is a generally recognized concept.

As several others have pointed out, if he had tried to drive away he would have been putting himself and many others in grave danger. He had every reason to believe that the kid would shoot, not to mention the dangers of taking evasive action with the vehicle on city streets.

Alex45ACP
June 24, 2005, 01:51 AM
The reporter e-mailed me back. He thanked me for the information and said he got the "40 mm" handgun info from his source. He said he didn't know enough to know it was incorrect.

Nice work.

Hook686
June 24, 2005, 03:38 AM
June 22nd, 2005, 03:21 PM #70 JohnBT wrote:


"ample time and opportunity to simply drive away." Time it yourself. Turn the key until the engine catches, shift into gear, release the parking brake, etc. How many rounds can you fire from a gun in, say, 2 seconds? You have fired a gun before, right? ;)


John...I'll be keeping an eye out for updates.



John I'm not sure what my firing a gun before has to do with your post, but I was reading the original post, which states,

He told police that after dropping off a woman at her home, he saw Brown and another boy circling his car on their bicycles.



I merely point out that I have been reading about carrying a weapon. The first rule seems to be simply to be aware of your surroundings ... who, what, where. Take measures to minimize becoming a victim from the begining, and not to rely upon a weapon to get you off the hook. Simple question ... not looking to blast, or justify the event that took place ... could this shooting have been avoided ?

Please save all the blasts about this kid had it coming. This was a human being. Could it have been handled in a less violent manner ?

John I've seen folks get off six in less than 2 seconds. How long does it take to circle a car on a bike ?

Hook686

only1asterisk
June 24, 2005, 03:59 AM
could this shooting have been avoided ?

You bet!

If dead idiot's parents had raised him to be something other than robbing thug, chances are it would not have happened.

David

Byron Quick
June 24, 2005, 04:28 AM
Why didn't the guy leave? Maybe he didn't like the idea of someone emptying a magazine into the passenger compartment as he drove away. If I'm close enough at night for you to see I have a rifle then I guarantee you that I am capable of putting every single round of a thirty round magazine into the passenger compartment before the car gets a hundred feet.

I had a man threatening to shoot me one day while collecting. Hand in his jacket pocket. I had to back down the driveway past him to leave after getting back into my car. I really had no desire to allow him the opportunity to fire into my vehicle. I remained in my postion-with the engine block and wheel between us with my hand on a Ruger Security Six until he staggered sideways and fell down. Then I jumped in the truck and boogied.

Attempting to retreat from a person armed with a magzine fed rifle and who is close enough to see that rifle at night is a good way to leave yourself at their mercy. What will be the consequences to you if they have no mercy? You come out of the night at me with a rifle and one or two things will happen: I'll decide that intentions are benign and we'll josh about guns or I'll decide that your intentions are not benign and I'll open fire. I don't think that any state requires that you retreat under fire. Retreating in that situation would be an idiotic risk to take with your life. Against a person who is barely competent with the weapon and has the will then you will die retreating.

cdma
June 24, 2005, 05:32 AM
And no CDMA, not every kid out at 11:40 at night is up to no good, but I suspect that nine times out of ten, the ones that have no adult supervision, are carrying a weapon, and have a criminal history are

First off, the article said that the kid had a "record of arrests," but didn't provide any details, and that's a lot different from a criminal record. I had the pleasure of living in a high-crime urban neighborhood for a few years and it wasn't uncommon for a crime to happen late at night and for the cops to arrest a few people, take them down to the station, sort things out, and then realize that while they did get the baddies, they also picked up someone who just happened to be in the area when the crime happened. It happened to me. If you went down to the police station and looked me up, you'd find a record of my arrest.

The article doesn't say what the kid was arrested for. If he was arrested twice for breaking curfew, that's hardly a sign that the kid was going to graduate to carjacking and armed robbery.

The driver had a pistol. Article doesn't say if the guy was a CCW holder or otherwise carrying it lawfully.

I'm really surprised at how uncritically people are reading this little blurb of an article which was written based on second-hand news from an unnamed law enforcement source. Given the general level of paranoia on THR, I'm surprised that people are reading a news article and believing it all. After all, the article did say that the guy had a 40mm handgun; I'm sure that the rest of the article's facts were just as carefully checked.

Edit: I googled around and found another article which said that the incident was being written off as self-defense, so all's well and good. The noble gun owner did indeed vanquish the evil urban punk. But seriously, it's really strange how from the article that started off this thread, all these unsupported assumptions were made. It was almost as if folks on THR were trusting that the media had done a good job, and that's enough to make one put on their tinfoil hat.

jobu07
June 24, 2005, 06:22 AM
it wasn't uncommon for a crime to happen late at night and for the cops to arrest a few people, take them down to the station, sort things out, and then realize that while they did get the baddies, they also picked up someone who just happened to be in the area when the crime happened. It happened to me. If you went down to the police station and looked me up, you'd find a record of my arrest.

That is the type of situation where you need to re-asses who you are hanging out with and why you are hanging out with them on the street, in a bad section of town, late at night, during the peak hours for crime.

Too Many Choices!?
June 24, 2005, 10:01 AM
And the truth has a distinct odor, just like BS has it's own unique aroma :neener:!

JohnBT
June 24, 2005, 10:32 AM
"How long does it take to circle a car on a bike ?"

Holding a rifle at your side? I have no idea and don't think it would be prudent to try it. Of course the young man didn't get shot for circling the car.

"Rodvon Daymetric Brown, 14, was carrying an unloaded, .22-caliber rifle when he got off his bicycle and approached a 47-year-old man sitting in his car at 24th Street and Fairmount Avenue around 11:40 p.m."

"...got off his bicycle and approached..."

I suppose he just wanted to ask directions or bum a smoke. :scrutiny:

No updates yet that I've seen.

John

TC66
June 24, 2005, 10:42 AM
I have been sitting here reading these posts and I see a lot of people saying just drive away. That does not work! Here are two cases where the victim was shot.

"It's an innocent motorist who was robbed," Huber said. "The owner of the car, Mr. Gordon, tried to drive away and was shot for it." TONY GORDON DIED TRYING TO FOLLOW OSHP CAPT. JOHN BORN'S ADVICE (http://www.ofccpac.org/modules.php?name=News&file=article&sid=660)

Dayton: Man critically hurt in foiled carjacking (http://www.ofccpac.org/modules.php?name=News&file=article&sid=2618)

If your life is in danger or you have good cause to believe it is in danger you defend yourself at all costs. If someone walks up with a knife and you are in a car that is different. Drive away, but this kid had a gun and the victim here did what he had to do to defend himself and keep himself alive. No the kid is not the victim in this case. It is the guy who the kid tried to rob and who is now forced to deal with having killed someone for the rest of his life.

It is a shame anyone had to die but in this case the right person died.

GRB
June 24, 2005, 10:52 AM
I am happy about the result. You see had the alleged criminal (that would be the kid not the man who shot him) gotten away with his alleged attempted crime, he may have wound up killing someone then or later on because he now maybe would have had the guy's pistol and car and ID and house keys and access to his family.

One thing that makes me want to puke is the way in which the alleged criminal has suddenly become the alleged crime victim! The kid who attempted to rob the guy in the car was not the "crime victim" if all in the article is correct. if all is correct then the guy in the car was THE ONLY CRIME VICTIM and Victims' Services should be catering to his emotional and psychological needs, not to those of the alleged criminal's family. That is about as liberal a twist of who was the crime victim as can be imagined. If any of you don't think so then read the below again:
Brown's family has a hard time believing the teen was carrying a gun, said Alicia Rasin, a crime-victim's advocate who was consoling family members yesterday. He lived with his mother, an aunt and siblings in the 1400 block of North 23rd Street, right around the corner from where he was killed, Rasin said.

"They just cannot see him having a gun," Rasin said.

Family members said the teen left the house to ride his bicycle last night before the shooting. "They said it was so hot last night, that he got on the bike and just rode around the corner," she said.

"Everybody that knows him" has seen him at one time or another riding his bike through the neighborhood, Rasin said.

Family members "just don't know why" someone would shoot him, she said.

Rasin said the teen's aunt, who helped raise Rodvon since he was 4, never knew him to be in possession of a gun. "He's never been arrested, never been in any trouble," Rasin said.

Grief counselors were made available yesterday to Brown's schoolmates at Chandler. The teen's guardian called the school yesterday morning to report that Brown "was shot and killed as he walked home along Fairmount Avenue," school spokeswoman Treeda Smith said in an advisory sent to Richmond School Board members.

In an interview late yesterday, Smith said she had received no additional information about the boy's death. The initial report the school received came from the teen's mother, Smith said.

"I'm sick and tired of saying I'm tired," Rasin said of Richmond's latest homicide. "I'm tired of saying, 'When is this going to be enough?'" That was from the second posted article in this thread. can you believe theunmitigated audacity of the advocate Rasin as to imply that the kid was the victim? Can you believe the unmitigated audacity of the person/guardian who said that Brown: "was shot and killed as he walked home along Fairmount Avenue" if in fact the story as given by the shooter is correct. This is BIZZARO WORLD as I see it, no more, no less.

Bobo
June 24, 2005, 12:04 PM
The kid was the law breaker. Fourteen years old and carrying a gun is illegal in VA.

NineseveN
June 24, 2005, 12:35 PM
Drive away? Are you insane (directed at no one in particular)?!?

I have news for you, if I intend to kill you, and I have my FAL in hand, you can run, but I have 21 little friends, and they can all run faster than you (or your car). Retreating from an armed person that may intend to do you harm while in a car makes that piece of steal nothing more than a rolling casket.

I do not care what the law says, I don't care what the bleeding hearts say, the laws of self-preservation say to react with deadly force when you feel your life is in or may be in immediate danger and there is no other option, my heart says if you come towards me with a firearm, you get a hearty plateful of lead salad...it's on special today. Judged, not carried...you get the drift.

When there is a firearm involved, how much of an opportunity does one generally have to "retreat" anyway? Hide behind a wall? Run into your car? You can't outrun a bullet, and again, regardless of how the law reads, I do not feel that any law abiding citizen is obligated to try to simply to avoid the possibility that some Monday morning quarterback, pinko liberal or ninny-DA will see their actions as illegal. Don't go into Compton at night, alone...and especially not with an Iggy Pop t-shirt on. Don't do drugs, don't associate with drug dealers and gangs...I believe that's about extent of the civic responsibility I have in the matter. I see no place for the words "try and retreat when someone has a gun in your face". If there is not a firearm involved, that makes it a different story entirely. You can retreat from 2-3 unarmed aggressors (especially in your car). You can retreat from someone with a knife or a club. However, if a would-be attacker gets too close to my person and I am carrying a firearm, I will draw without hesitation. it is entirely too easy for someone within 3-4 feet of you to overpower you and disarm you. The possibility that someone may get my firearm away from me is, to me, an immediate threat on my life and I would act accordingly. but these are all fringe-scenarios. In this story, we are talking about 2 aggressors; one wielding what appeared to be a rifle, and a man alone in his car. No questions about it. Clean shoot, move on

SLCDave
June 24, 2005, 02:19 PM
I like that the crime victim's advocate is sticking up for the criminal with the illegally obtained firearm, who was breaking curfew with her permission. I also like that she decided to call the school and lie to them regarding the circumstances of the kid's death. If she will lie about that, why wouldn't she lie about her knowledge of the gun? Sounds like he was raised in an environment that didn't put a lot of stock in obeying the law and telling the truth.

That being said, it is a shame anytime someone has to take the life of another, especially when the life is one of a child. I'm not saying the shooter was not justified, but I'd bet he wishes he didn't have to do it too.

The man may have been seatbelted in his vehicle, with the engine off when the kid with the rifle starts to approach. Now, with an armed person approaching, he has to fumble with his keys, start the car, possibly take off the parking brake and put it in gear. Was he parrallel parked? Will he need to back up before he can pull out? Did someone pull up behind him and pin him in, making it difficult to impossible to "just drive off"? The shooter also said the kid tried to rob him at gunpoint, indicating the kid had ability and motive to harm him, and at least a decent possibly he had no way to escape. The kid put him in the position where he did what he had to do.

Double Maduro
June 24, 2005, 03:01 PM
NineseveN & others,

What we know,

1. The gg, (the guy in the car that did the shooting), had dropped off a lady friend.

2. He saw a couple of people aproaching his car on bicycles, (the bgs).

3. The bgs started to circle his car on their bicycles.

4. One of the bgs approached the ggs car with a rifle in his hands. This means the bg had to stop his bike, get off, and walk up to the car.

5. The gg said the bg"threatened him with a gun and attempted to rob him,"

6. The gg shot the bg through 2 windows of his car.

7. The gg called 911 and waited for police to show up.

What we don't know.

1. If the gg had walked his lady friend to her door and she was inside or if he let her out at the curb and she was on her way to the door. Some people seem to think that he was protecting her, because she hadn't made it inside yet. We have no information about her whereabouts.

2. How far away the bgs were when he first saw them approaching his car with what looked like an assault rifle.

2a. When he noticed that the bgs had a weapon for the first time.

3. If one or more of the bgs were in front of his car all of the time, preventing him from leaving. Some folks seem to think that it is more defensible in court to have shot the bg than to have run into him with the car.

3a If one or more of the bgs were behind his car at all times, preventing him from backing away from trouble, (most cars have a reverse).

4. Why he let the bg approach his car with a weapon in his hands and attempt to rob him.

5. In what manner the bg with the gun threatened him.

Some questions on some of the points.

6. I don't know about you but I don't know that I could draw my ccw from my IWB holster from the 3 o'clock position, from under my cover garment, from under my seat belt, aim and fire, faster than I could drop the car into drive and floor it.

Can you?

6a. Even if I could, I don't know if I would trust it to shoot through car window glass.

6b. How do you get a sight picture with the gun between you, the driver, and the rolled up drivers window of your car?

6c. Where did the projectiles end up? I am assuming this is a developed area since he probably wasn't dropping his lady friend off in the middle of nowhere.

6d. You can't outrun a bullet, true, but the kids were on bicycles, not in a ready position when he first noticed them, would have taken a second or two for them to stop, get off the bike, raise the weapon, take aim, and try to hit a moving target, 30-40 mph at that point?, in the dark at a distance that would probably be 50 yards or more by then.

Could you?

6e. Even if the bg could hit the car at that speed and distance, there is much less of a chance for him to hit the gg at that speed and distance and even less of the rounds penetrating the vehicle than if the gg had missed and the bg shot him through the now open window.

6f. The gg got lucky and hit the bg with 1 of 3 unaimed shots that miraculously made it through his car window. What if the gg had missed and the bg had a loaded weapon? The distance the bg would have to shoot would be much less and the target wouldn't be moving.

6g. We don't know that if the bg wasn't killed by the gg that he would have gone on to commit other perhaps even worse crimes. We don't know that he would have taken the gg's gun or car. We don't know that he would have used the gg's gun to shoot all of the people in the local stop and rob, or that he would have used the gg's car to run a school bus off the road and then use his assault rifle to kill all of the kids. We also don't know that he would have given all of the money to his sainted aunt who has been caring for him. We don't even know why his aunt was caring for him and his siblings.

I am not saying that the gg did anything wrong. I am not saying that the bg was in any way not responsible for his own death. I am not saying that running away would have been a better solution. I am not saying that I know what the best response was.

I am saying that we don't have enough information to form an opinion as to what the best response was. In this case the gg was able to defeat the bg and live to talk about it. This is a victory in itself.

My real point is;

In these situations, there is never "ONE" right answer. Only by digesting and diagnosing what happened in situations like these, are we able to learn from them. Questioning the actions of the gg is not condemning them, it is questioning whether there may have been another course of action that may have been as good or better.

What could be better than the gg living and the bg not? How about the gg living and not having night mares for the rest of his life about the "kid" he had to kill in self defense?

How about the gg not losing everything he owns, to defend against the wrongful death suit that will inevetibly happen?

How about, the gg runs away, calls the police who aprehend the bg without bloodshed. The bg learns the error of his ways and becomes a productive member of society, far fetched I admit, but possible.

There are many things we don't know about this incident, only by exploring all of the possibilities can we learn anything from it.


Thank you for your time,
DM

Bubbles
June 24, 2005, 04:05 PM
We do know some other facts.

- This incident occurred almost two weeks ago.

- The good guy has not been arrested. While the Commonwealth of Virginia is relatively pro-gun, the City of Richmond isn't known for being especially gun-friendly. If the cops or prosecutor smelled anything even remotely fishy about this incident, the good guy would have been taken downtown.

- The good guy has not been named. Most likely his attorney has told him to sit down, shut up, and not talk to the press because even if criminal charges aren't ever filed, there could be a wrongful death civil suit filed by the perp's family.

Igloodude
June 24, 2005, 04:10 PM
The driver had a pistol. Article doesn't say if the guy was a CCW holder or otherwise carrying it lawfully.

If he wasn't carrying it lawfully, do you think he'd wait around for the police to show up?

I'm really surprised at how uncritically people are reading this little blurb of an article which was written based on second-hand news from an unnamed law enforcement source. Given the general level of paranoia on THR, I'm surprised that people are reading a news article and believing it all. After all, the article did say that the guy had a 40mm handgun; I'm sure that the rest of the article's facts were just as carefully checked.

40mm vs 40S&W is a fairly easy mistake to make for someone who isn't familiar with pistols. But for other facts presented, such as:

"A family spokeswoman had said Brown had never been arrested..."

"But last night, a law enforcement source said Brown did, in fact, have a record of arrests as a juvenile."

(How many murderers on death row have mothers crying "but he's a good boy, there's no way he could ever hurt someone?)

"...and was not known by his aunt to carry a weapon."

"One of the shots struck Brown in the side of the head, causing him to fall face-first on his gun."

(Thus the implication that the gun was planted seems unlikely, if he fell on it and was no doubt bleeding all over it.)

With those two discrepancies (assuming the author or his sources aren't outright lying) we can safely assume the family will say anything to make the boy show up in a better light. When we combine this with the tendency of the media to cast a harsh light on any armed citizen, it leads me (and apparently most others here) to give the shooter in this case the benefit of the doubt.

Waitone
June 24, 2005, 04:30 PM
I wish reporters knew the damage they do to their credibility when they print information that had they fact checked would have not appeared in the report. The proper description of a firearm is a relatively straightforward proposition provided you fact-check with knowledgeable sources.

When I see such errors I automatically wonder what else is in factual error. Particularly those facts that are not as easily verified as the description of a handgun. You don't need to be a firearms expert to use a proper description. You need a reliable source of backgound information. If that means going to social pariah such as NRA shooting instructors, that's what you do. :scrutiny:

dcloudy777@aol.com
June 24, 2005, 05:07 PM
Of course some of the relevant details are not included in the article (nor do they need to be... this is the internet, not a court of law). But from the factd presented, this looks like a good shoot. The actual intentions and mindset of the BG isn't relevant, only the intentions that a reasonable person could construe from his behavior. Could this shooting have been avoided? Of course it could have... most can... given a few days to think of a more delicate response... which unfortunately the vicitm in this case didn't have.
I cannot, from the facts presented, fault the shooter in this case. Its real simple... if I'm minding my own business on public property, and you point anything more dangerous than a dirty look at me, at least one of us is going to get shot. Probably lotsa times....

DanO

NineseveN
June 24, 2005, 06:45 PM
4. One of the bgs approached the ggs car with a rifle in his hands. This means the bg had to stop his bike, get off, and walk up to the car.

Which takes less than a second.


2. How far away the bgs were when he first saw them approaching his car with what looked like an assault rifle.

2a. When he noticed that the bgs had a weapon for the first time.

Which matters to the courts/LEOs, not me. If he saw and thought, ďIf these punks try and rob/hurt me or anyone else, Iíll kill them. I am a legally armed citizen, Iím going to hang here and see whatís upĒ, personally, to me, Iíd buy him a beer. Because, another component to the law people keep citing, is the part about ďdefense of othersĒ. Not all states have it, not all apply it very well if they do. If this guy saw the weapon and thought, ďI just dropped off a friend, and hereís some jerk with a rifle running around, Iím gonna un-holster my handgun and I will step in if anything happensĒ while he also pulled out his cell phone to report it (and then before he could dial the 9-1-1 the BG came up to the car, resulting in his death) Iíd let the guy date my sister. And before someone cries the whole Ďvigilanteí thing, that does not apply when you find yourself in a situation, only when you bring about or purposely seek one out.

If I saw a guy running around my neighborhood, the FAL would promptly be in hand. Where I come from, criminals and people that are intent on hurting innocent people have no rights until they are apprehended by law enforcement, because I donít live in the courts, I live where real people become victims of punks like this every single day. When they are at large, they are fair game if it comes down to me or some poor schmuck thatís walking his dog at night and the scumbag, the scumbag loses. Iíll let the law decide afterwards, Iíll have a clear conscience.


3. If one or more of the bgs were in front of his car all of the time, preventing him from leaving. Some folks seem to think that it is more defensible in court to have shot the bg than to have run into him with the car.

3a If one or more of the bgs were behind his car at all times, preventing him from backing away from trouble, (most cars have a reverse).

Simply not relevant. If they were close enough for him to hear one of them threaten him, no questionÖblastin time.

4. Why he let the bg approach his car with a weapon in his hands and attempt to rob him.

Tons of reasons are possible. I donít find them relevant. Perhaps others do, thatís their thing, cool. With the information I have, I am comfortable offering the guy a pat on the back. New information could quite possibly change that.


5. In what manner the bg with the gun threatened him.

In what manner? In the manner of holding a firearm. Manner enough for me to warrant the end of the bgís life. I donít care if the kid said please and sir, with a rifle in hand, it puts all the context anyone will ever need on the conversation. Is there a polite way to point a gun at someone or brandish one in front of them?


6. I don't know about you but I don't know that I could draw my ccw from my IWB holster from the 3 o'clock position, from under my cover garment, from under my seat belt, aim and fire, faster than I could drop the car into drive and floor it.

Can you?


2.6 seconds, on a good day if I do my part if I am caught surprised. And yes, I time and practice this. I spend 4 hours a day on the road, isolated from much more than trees and rock. Of course, I also have a holster rig I attach to my seatbelt and a make-shift shoulder rig if I really want to save time. However, in VA, open carry is legal, I am not even sure the GG had to do much more than grab the gun from his console and point, click, bang.

In contrast to that. It takes an average mid-size passenger car 7-9 seconds to go from 0-60 provided optimal traction and optimal conditions, if the driver is ready for it. Add to that approximately 1 second to press the brake and shift from park and then floor the car. At even 3 seconds the driver would still be a sitting duck with his torso and head in near-plain view. If that is considered a reasonable and viable option somewhere, I never want to live on that planet.


6a. Even if I could, I don't know if I would trust it to shoot through car window glass.

6b. How do you get a sight picture with the gun between you, the driver, and the rolled up drivers window of your car?[quote]

Not sure what youíre getting at, I donít find it relevant.


[quote]6c. Where did the projectiles end up? I am assuming this is a developed area since he probably wasn't dropping his lady friend off in the middle of nowhere.

Well, the important one ended up in the assailantís face. No one else was reportedly hit. Again, good shoot.


6d. You can't outrun a bullet, true, but the kids were on bicycles, not in a ready position when he first noticed them, would have taken a second or two for them to stop, get off the bike, raise the weapon, take aim, and try to hit a moving target, 30-40 mph at that point?, in the dark at a distance that would probably be 50 yards or more by then.

Could you?

How do we know when he noticed the gun? Perhaps he did not notice it until after they were off the bikes? We donít know, but regardless, if you cannot hit a target at 50 yards that is moving in a semi-straight line away from you, not much I can say. I can hit a car-sized target every time at 50 yards with my handgun (don't know about a driver sized target, but I'll hit the car). Give me a rifle and Iíll beep the friggen horn for you. Any semi-competent shot can do the same, give or take a few inches. It is not a viable option to try and outrun bullets, especially fired from a rifle, from a dead stop, in straight line in an unarmored vehicle. 150 feet in 2 seconds? A common rifle bullet can easily travel over 2500 feet per second from the muzzle. Even the lowly .22 would be at over 1100 feet per second at 50 yards. In 2 seconds, that bullet has almost gone Ĺ a mile. Some of the fastest passenger (non-sports/exotic) cars have a hard time running the ľ mile in 10 seconds or less. If the GG had a 15 second head start, the bullet would take less than 2 seconds to catch up.

6e. Even if the bg could hit the car at that speed and distance, there is much less of a chance for him to hit the gg at that speed and distance and even less of the rounds penetrating the vehicle than if the gg had missed and the bg shot him through the now open window.

And you base this on? Sure, the rifle was a .22, but did the GG know this? Would you take that chance? If it had been my FAL the BG was holding, at 50 yards itís a 1-hole gun if I do my part. Penetrating auto-glass is no sweat. I can hit nickels at 100 yards if I take my time and do my part, even a marginal shot can hit paper every time. A head sized target at 50 yards is not hard to hit with a rifle. The GG would have had a better chance outside of the car where he could duck and cover and weave in between obstructions. Speed will not help you against a bullet. Physics does not play Blackjack.

6f. The gg got lucky and hit the bg with 1 of 3 unaimed shots that miraculously made it through his car window. What if the gg had missed and the bg had a loaded weapon? The distance the bg would have to shoot would be much less and the target wouldn't be moving.

At point blank and close distances (4 feet and less) the pistol would have the advantage. When you go to more than 4 feet, the rifle becomes increasingly advantageous. You canot shoot back and stop your attacker with your back to them and driving away. If the GG was going in reverse, he likely would have made it 10-15 feet at 15 MPH before he was dead if the BG decided to take a hot.


6g. We don't know that if the bg wasn't killed by the gg that he would have gone on to commit other perhaps even worse crimes. We don't know that he would have taken the gg's gun or car. We don't know that he would have used the gg's gun to shoot all of the people in the local stop and rob, or that he would have used the gg's car to run a school bus off the road and then use his assault rifle to kill all of the kids.

Nope, but we do know that because he is dead, he will never do those things. Good enough for me.



In these situations, there is never "ONE" right answer. Only by digesting and diagnosing what happened in situations like these, are we able to learn from them. Questioning the actions of the gg is not condemning them, it is questioning whether there may have been another course of action that may have been as good or better.

If thatís your way, good for you. I am satisfied with the GG saying he was in fear for his life, defense was warranted and he lived. If information comes out to the contrary of that, I will adjust my opinion accordingly.


And DM, this wasnít necessarily an attack on you, just a response. Thanks.

Double Maduro
June 24, 2005, 08:14 PM
NineseveN,

In what manner? In the manner of holding a firearm. Manner enough for me to warrant the end of the bgís life. I donít care if the kid said please and sir, with a rifle in hand, it puts all the context anyone will ever need on the conversation.

Gee, I sure hope I never need a ride from you when I'm grouse hunting.

Read my posts.

I am not saying that the gg did anything wrong. I am not even saying that I would have done anything differently.

I am saying that if we get off of the personal, ego driven attacks, and look at the facts we have, and discuss them calmly, from the position of monday morning quarterback, we may learn something.

Like maybe be more aware of your surroundings.

DM

NineseveN
June 24, 2005, 08:21 PM
Gee, I sure hope I never need a ride from you when I'm grouse hunting.
Nitpicking, you know what I meant, or at least I would hope so.


I am not saying that the gg did anything wrong. I am not even saying that I would have done anything differently.

I don't think I said you did, if I did, it was unintentional.


I am saying that if we get off of the personal, ego driven attacks, and look at the facts we have, and discuss them calmly, from the position of monday morning quarterback, we may learn something.

In my view, it's not terribly important what we think after the fact. We can hindsight this to death, doesn't change what happened. I feel your suggestions that I quoted were off, but I was not trying to attack you or anyone else over it. If you got that feeling, again, it was unintentional and I am not sure how you got it.


Like maybe be more aware of your surroundings.

Good advice regardless. Though I doubt that you're implying that a gun owner's charge to be aware of their own surroundings supercedes their right to use deadly force in the event that they find themselve's in a bad place. I mean, if that worked even in a remotely consistent and reliable manner, would there be any reason to CCW other than "because we can"?

:)

Byron Quick
June 25, 2005, 03:02 AM
If you're in a car going down the road from me at any speed and I step into the road directly behind you...I'll get hits a lot farther than fifty yards with a rifle. Now if you're fifty yards away from and moving from my right to my left...that's more iffy. But I'll tell you this much...the last deer that tried to run at fifty yards from left to right was shot through the neck with the fifth shot. She was moving pretty good, too. When you have multiple shots, getting the lead is just a matter of trial and error.

I'm not going to take the chance that you might not be a good shot. I'm not going to take the chance of being the recipient of a lucky shot.

Employee of mine walked up to me one night and pulled an imitation plastic Uzi from under his jacket and pointed it at me. I swept the weapon to my left with my left hand and was about half way through my draw when I realized that the inertia of the gun was way too little and stopped. My employee was still inhaling to scream. If I hadn't made contact with that plastic Uzi; I would have gone for slide lock on him.

I would have felt bad when I found out it was plastic. That wouldn't have helped him much, though, now would it? The boy was about as intelligent as a manhole cover. If it hadn't been this, then it would have been something else.

JohnBT
June 25, 2005, 09:14 AM
Nothing new in the morning paper. No mention at all. My retired neighbor watches the local news 2 or 3 times a day and she hasn't seen a thing on it either.

"the City of Richmond isn't known for being especially gun-friendly."

That's not true. Other than the former law requiring buyers and sellers to get a permit every time they bought or sold a gun, it's just like everywhere else in Virginia. The purpose of this old law was to close down a couple of small gun stores. This law was so obscure that when a new mall opened a couple of years ago Galyans was open and selling handguns before anyone (other than me it seems) realized they were breaking the law. It was changed in a day. If only City Council could be so efficient everyday.

Carry permits are simple to get and the police don't freak out when they stop someone with 6 or 7 handguns, some loaded, on the front seat of their truck - this happened one evening to a buddy of mine on Broad St. in front of City Hall. He did draw a few cop cars, but they just wanted to talk about guns for 10 or 15 minutes. I don't think he even got a warning for the bad bulb. :)

Speaking of old stories - while we're waiting on some actual facts about the case in question - a friend of mine used to live above an art studio in a not so good area of town. One night she was awakened by some 13-year-olds fighting in the street over an old revolver. From what the kids were yelling she knew they didn't have any ammo. So she called the cops at 3 a.m. By the time they arrived a few minutes later the kids were gone. She apologized for bothering them and said she didn't know what else to do to get some peace and quiet. One of them said "Throw 'em some bullets."

John

Kharn
June 25, 2005, 09:48 AM
Well, I guess you could call a Mk19 a 40mm handgun, since its not fired from the shoulder:
http://www.jrtc-polk.army.mil/519th/myweb4/204th%20Pictures/Mk%2019.JPG
But there arent many semiauto ones about... ;)

Kharn

marley
June 25, 2005, 12:32 PM
The article in the paper is the same as the one here. I would not go into that area in the daytime much less at night. When I was younger and dumber I used to go out of the city that way and I would say I was lucky. I am very surprised that the city cops did not arrest him on the spot. My dealings with the city cops have always been good. I think that that is a good inidcation that the RPD thinks that it was a good shoot. Open carry is legal. The gun could have been on the seat or his belt concealed or not that fact does not matter. I would execpt to be arrested in the same situation. You can not carry A rifle with a mag over 20rds.It is not legal(taped or not) until july. I assume that it was a 30rd mag as it would have looked more scary. There is a thread over at glock talk you could check out. It has some different information. I was wondering about the 40mm handgun as well. The richmond paper is not always correct with the little facts. It does usually get the big ones right. Patrick

BluesBear
June 26, 2005, 10:02 AM
Rodvon Daymetric Brown, 14, was carrying an unloaded, .22-caliber rifle when he got off his bicycle and approached a 47-year-old man sitting in his car at 24th Street and Fairmount Avenue around 11:40 p.m Some of you are acting like he parked his bike 500yards away and just casually strolled over to the car.
:banghead:
This was on a city street. I'll wager the moment he dismounted he was close enough for a Tueler drill. Fight or flight. In this case theman in the car had control by choosing Fight. had he chosen Flight the possibilities would have been out of his contol.
I probably would have shot him too.

"They just cannot see him having a gun," Well everyone else could. Seems he fell on top of the dang thing! :rolleyes:

"They just cannot see him having a gun,"
Family members "just don't know why" someone would shoot him, she said.
...never knew him to be in possession of a gun.
"He's never been arrested, never been in any trouble," Of course they cannot see it because they are poster droids for self-absorption.
Pay attention people... PARENT is also a VERB!
A proper parent knows what's going on in their child's life.


I am deeply sorry for the man who had to shoot him.
His life will never be the same.
But at least he has a life. Something he might not have if not for his .40 caliber pistol.

And I'll go out on a limb here and say what so many of you are thinking.
I am GLAD he's dead. I actuallly am "gleeful" about it. I have absolutely NO sympathy for him whatsoever.
(and anyone who knows me knows what my motto for this is)
Both he and the world are better off now. He was old enough to make a deadly life choice. Do you think that AK mag duct-taped itself to that .22? :eek:
He was old enough to incur the consequences.
For once in his life he was forced to accept responsibility for his actions.

Now I am sorry his family is grieving. But I am also even more sorrowful that they are such a pathetic example of the moderm "family".

Elmer
June 26, 2005, 12:50 PM
I am deeply sorry for the man who had to shoot him.
His life will never be the same.

Very true. He will probably spend his life savings on defending himself in a civil trial. He will receive death threats, and more than likely have his property vandalized.

All for trying to protect himself.

pax
June 26, 2005, 12:51 PM
Now I am sorry his family is grieving. But I am also even more sorrowful that they are such a pathetic example of the moderm "family".

Actually, Blues, I have very little or no sympathy for his family. And what I feel about the kid is something like you'd feel if you were a responsible dog owner and your dog was biting people: he had to be put down, yes, but there's no joy in it. How could there be?

Extended quote from Robert Heinlein in Starship Troopers (the excellent book, not the crappy movie of the same name):

Mr. Dubois then demanded of me, "Define a 'juvenile delinquent.'"

"Uh, one of those kids -- the ones who used to beat up people."

"Wrong."

"Huh? But the book said -- "

"My apologies. Your textbook does so state. But calling a tail a leg does not make the name fit. 'Juvenile delinquent' is a contradiction in terms, one which gives a clue to their problem and their failure to solve it. Have you ever raised a puppy?"

"Yes, sir."

"Did you housebreak him?"

"Err ... yes, sir. Eventually." It was my slowness in this that caused my mother to rule that dogs must stay out of the house.

"Ah, yes. When your puppy made mistakes, were you angry?"

"What? Why, he didn't know any better; he was just a puppy."

"What did you do?"

"Why, I scolded him and rubbed his nose in it and paddled him."

"Surely he could not understand your words?"

"No, but he could tell I was sore at him!"

"But you just said that you were not angry."

Mr. Dubois had an infuriating way of getting a person mixed up, "No, but I had to make him think I was. He had to learn, didn't he?"

"Conceded. But, having made it clear to him that you disapproved, how could you be so cruel as to spank him as well? You said the poor beastie didn't know that he was doing wrong. Yet you inflicted pain. Justify yourself! Or are you a sadist?"

I didn't then know what a sadist was -- but I know pups. "Mr. Dubois, you have to! You scold him so that he knows he's in trouble, you rub his nose in it so that he will know what trouble you mean, you paddle him so that he darn well won't do it again -- and you have to do it right away! It doesn't do a bit of good to punish him later; you'll just confuse him. Even so, he won't learn from one lesson, so you watch and catch him again and paddle him still harder. Pretty soon he learns. But it's a waste of breath just to scold him." Then I added, "I guess you've never raised pups."

"Many. I'm raising a daschund now -- by your methods. Let's get back to those juvenile criminals. The most vicious averaged somewhat younger than you here in this class ...and they often started their lawless careers much younger. Let us never forget that puppy. These children were often caught; police arrested batches each day. Were they scolded? Yes, often scathingly. Were their noses rubbed in it? Rarely. Newspapers and officials usually kept their names secret -- in many places this was the law for criminals under eighteen. Were they spanked? Indeed not! Many had never been spanked even as small children; there was a widespread belief that spanking, or any punishment involving pain, did a child permanent psychic damage."

(I had reflected that my father must never have heard of that theory.)

"Corporal punishment in schools was forbidden by law," he had gone on. "Flogging was lawful as sentence of court only in one small province, Delaware, and there only for a few crimes and was rarely invoked; it was regarded as 'cruel and unusual punishment.'" Dubois had mused aloud, "I do not understand objections to 'cruel and unusual' punishment. While a judge should be benevolent in purpose, his awards should cause the criminal to suffer, else there is no punishment -- and pain is the basic mechanism built into us by millions of years of evolution which safeguards us by warning when something threatens our survival. Why should society refuse to use such a highly perfected survival mecahnism? However, that period was loaded with pre-scientific pseudo-psychological nonsense.

"As for 'unusual,' punishment must be unusual or it serves no purpose." He then pointed his stump at another boy. "What would happen if a puppy were spanked every hour?"

"Uh ... probably drive him crazy!"

"Probably. It certainly will not teach him anything. How long has it been since the principal of this school last had to switch a pupil?"

"Uh, I'm not sure. About two years. The kid that swiped --"

"Never mind. Long enough. It means that such punishment is so unusual as to be significant, to deter, to instruct. Back to these young criminals -- They probably were not spanked as babies; they certainly were not flogged for their crimes. The usual sentence was: for a first offence, a warning -- a scolding, often without trial. After several offenses a sentence of confinement but with sentence suspended and the youngster placed on probation. A boy might be arrested may times and convicted several times before he was punished -- and then it would be merely confinement, with others like him from whom he learned still more criminal habits. If he kept out of major trouble while confined, he could usually evade most of even that mild punishment, be given probation -- 'paroled' in the jargon of the times.

"This incredible sequence could go on for years while his crimes increased in frequency and viciousness, with no punishment whatever save rare dull-but-comfortable confinements. Then suddenly, usually by law on his eighteenth birthday, this so-called 'juvenile delinquent' becomes an adult criminal -- and sometimes wound up in only weeks or months in a death cell awaiting execution for murder."

He had singled me out again. "Suppose you merely scolded your puppy, never punished him, let him go on making messes in the house ... and occasionally locked him up in an outbuilding but soon let him back into the house with a warning not to do it again. Then one day you notice that he is now a grown dog and still not housebroken -- whereupon you whip out a gun and shoot him dead. Comment, please?"

"Why ... that's the craziest way to raise a dog I ever heard of!"

"I agree. Or a child. Whose fault would it be?"

"Uh ... why, mine, I guess."

"Again I agree. But I'm not guessing."

[snip]

Mr. Dubois then turned to me. "I told you that 'juveline delinquent' is a contradiction in terms. 'Delinquent' means 'failing in duty.' But duty is an adult virtue -- indeed a juvenile becomes an adult when, and only when, he acquires a knowledge of duty and embraces it as dearer than the self-love he was born with. There never was, there cannot be, a 'juvenile delinquent.' But for every juvenile criminal there are always one or more adult delinquents -- people of mature years who either do not know their duty, or who, knowing it, fail.
So I don't feel too bad for the poor family whose child is dead. I only mourn for the fact that a child of 14 is still a child, and should have had a complete and healthy life still ahead of him. I'm not excusing his actions (he paid the ultimate penalty for them, and rightfully so!), but I place the blame more upon the adults around him who obviously failed to do what parents must do if their children are to become healthy, contributing members of the community.

pax

Deep thinkers who look everywhere for the mysterious causes of poverty, ignorance, crime and war need look no further than their own mirrors. We are all born into this world poor and ignorant, and with thoroughly selfish and barbaric impulses. Those of us who turn out any other way do so largely through the efforts of others, who civilized us before we got big enough to do too much damage to the world or ourselves. -- Thomas Sowell

Mannlicher
June 26, 2005, 01:19 PM
Elmer says:Quote:
I am deeply sorry for the man who had to shoot him.
His life will never be the same.



Very true. He will probably spend his life savings on defending himself in a civil trial. He will receive death threats, and more than likely have his property vandalized.

All for trying to protect himself.

I disagree. I think the incident once over, will be over. It is a myth that every shooting results in a civil trial for "wrongful death". Most of the time, at least here in Florida, if the shooting was ruled a valid self defense shooting, thats the end of it. Frankly, it does not look like anyone in the little miscreant's family cared anything about him in the first place. I don't think they care any more now.

Waitone
June 26, 2005, 02:17 PM
They'll care about him if there is money to be had.

Elmer
June 26, 2005, 02:45 PM
I disagree. I think the incident once over, will be over. It is a myth that every shooting results in a civil trial for "wrongful death". Most of the time, at least here in Florida, if the shooting was ruled a valid self defense shooting, thats the end of it. Frankly, it does not look like anyone in the little miscreant's family cared anything about him in the first place. I don't think they care any more now.

Do you track litigation on shootings? They don't usually make the paper.

Let's place a wager. If this man has any assets, he'll be sued regardless of how the district attorney rules.

Greed usually accompanies irresponsibility.......

DMF
June 26, 2005, 03:14 PM
You know, I can't help but wonder what the reaction would be to a story similiar in detail, except the shooter was a cop not a CCW holder. :scrutiny:

NineseveN
June 26, 2005, 03:37 PM
You know, I can't help but wonder what the reaction would be to a story similiar in detail, except the shooter was a cop not a CCW holder.

The reaction?

From the media? They'd call for the Cop's head on a stick! Then they'd also make another round on the "gun control" circuit for a few weeks.

From the ill-informed and those with their heads where the toilet paper goes? They'd cry about the poor little misunderstood kid that was 'murdered' by the jack-booted-thugs on the city's payroll. they'd blame racism/clasism/our poor public schools...

From those of us with a clue? We'd silently give him a pat on the back and wish we knew him personally so we could go buy him a beer and let him know he did the right thing.

Yes, Police Officer should be placed into a lower-margin-of-error-expectation, no doubt, but only when their life is not threatened. If you put a Cop's life in danger in any way, shape or form, I firmly believe they have the right to use whatever means they have to defend their own life. If that means you end up taking a dirt nap, so be it.

And no, I am not a police officer, I don't place them on a pedestal higher than anyone else, which is exactly my point...if I felt justified in the shoot, I feel that a police officer would be just as in the right.

DarthBubba
June 26, 2005, 06:02 PM
Wow a 40mm handgun,

Where can I get me one of them?!!
As far as the fate of the Kid goes it is a sad fact that he must have had no training with the proper protocols of weapon handling.
This unfortunate fact cost him his life sad but true. No man with common sense would blame the shooter but as it stands he may be charged for defending himself in a situation that he judged to be threatening to his person.
You can expect the local Anti crowd to jump on this and that also begs the question how long before the race card is played.
Seems like there is way too many angels to this that could be exploited by a lawyer for this to come any sort of resolution any time soon.
Keep your eyes open and we will all see.

DarthBubba

Snookay
June 26, 2005, 07:21 PM
I read page 1,2 and skimmed the last page. You guys are too happy about some kid dying. Saying ???? like "another punk off the streets" "lol good for him" "F the kids families feelings" etc

Doesnt really sound like the high road unless everyone on this board Wants to be put into that type of situation so they can kill someone legally.

Dont get me wrong the kid did what he did and was handled accordingly. I dont think the guy in the car did anything wrong.

I dont think anyone realized the kid had no intention or capability to kill the guy in the car. His dumb ass and his dumb friends probably were playing with an empty gun and someone had an idea to rob someone and go get some ice cream. We All have done stupid stuff when we were younger because of someone in your group having a dumb idea.

BTW, i highly doubt his gaurdians knew the kid was playing with a rifle or had access. We all have done stuff are parents never knew about.

Mr. X
June 27, 2005, 03:14 PM
Employee of mine walked up to me one night and pulled an imitation plastic Uzi from under his jacket and pointed it at me. I swept the weapon to my left with my left hand and was about half way through my draw when I realized that the inertia of the gun was way too little and stopped. My employee was still inhaling to scream. If I hadn't made contact with that plastic Uzi; I would have gone for slide lock on him.


Is there more to that story? I rather imagine he became an EX-employee within minutes of the occurence.

JohnBT
June 27, 2005, 05:51 PM
"We All have done stupid stuff when we were younger"

Anybody ever duct tape an empty magazine to an empty rifle and try to rob somebody? Anybody? C'mon, 'fess up.

On second thought, if they did they're either too embarrassed to admit it or they're dead.

John

Snookay
June 27, 2005, 06:04 PM
John BT, you would agree that trying to rob someone with a empty duck taped gun is extremely stupid, wouldnt you? If you dont call that stupidity what is it then? :uhoh:

Appears that you've never absent mindedly done a Very Stupid act as a young person but i know you have. Luckily you didnt get shot for it :)

scottgun
June 27, 2005, 06:06 PM
I've done some stupid things as a kid, but commiting armed robbery wasn't one of them. We have also done things as kids our parents, I mean guardians didn't know about, but again armed robbery wasn't one of them. It's quite dismissive to say kids will be kids as if this was some sort of playgound prank. The "kids" knew very well what they were doing.

NineseveN
June 27, 2005, 09:44 PM
How does one absent-mindedly duct-tape an AK mag to a rifle and approach somebody trying to rob them? I mean, that's stretching the limits of plausability there a bit. Now, if the kid found his dad's gun and accidentally shot his friend or something in the room where the gun was found, okay, I can see that as doing something stupid. Armed robbery, while not the smartest thing, can't be simply chalked up to stupidity...stupidity with the intent to commit a crime perhaps, but then that's a whole new ball game there, now isn't it?

Gung-Ho
June 27, 2005, 11:15 PM
And the two twins "Syphilis and Gonorrhea"

Don't you mean "Go'norrhea"? ;)

captlid
June 28, 2005, 12:31 AM
Well, in my opinion, first of all a 14-year-old kid has absolutely no business being on the street at 11:40 at night.?

Whats wrong with staying outside at that time? When I was that age, me and friends went rollerblading till around 3am cause its too hot to do so in the summer otherwise.
(we didnt have rifles on us though.)

JohnBT
June 28, 2005, 08:25 AM
"If you dont call that stupidity what is it then?"

Insanity, pure and simple.

As far as staying out late goes, all I can say is...his neighborhood isn't too safe during the day.

John

If you enjoyed reading about "Idiot kid with .22 shot dead by CCW holder" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!