Father shoots at robbers


PDA






acdodd
December 1, 2005, 02:52 PM
One for the good guys.



http://www.kingcountyjournal.com/sited/story/html/224062

If you enjoyed reading about "Father shoots at robbers" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!
HighVelocity
December 1, 2005, 02:57 PM
Good to read that none of the good guys were injured. Hopefully the police will find the robbers quickly before they try again on somebody less prepared.

Jubei
December 1, 2005, 04:21 PM
I'm glad that nobody (good guys that is) was hurt. They could probably identify the Chevy by the skid marks left in the seats.

Jubei

Standing Wolf
December 1, 2005, 08:49 PM
The headline:

Man takes law into his own hands: Father shoots at robbers at Kent shop while gun is pointed at son's head

I'm real tired of dummies and leftists trying to portray people who save their lives with firearms as vigilantes.

JohnKSa
December 1, 2005, 09:15 PM
...they've been trying to avoid "the old pawn shop image'' and don't carry personal weapons when they're at the counters, although weapons are out of sight in strategic locations, just in case.

But Frank Buell, didn't have time to grab a weapon...:rolleyes:

Bart Noir
December 1, 2005, 10:06 PM
I just sent this message to the reporter:

"Hi, as a shooter and gun owner and believer in the Second Amendment, I think you wrote a good article. But I take exception with the headline, knowing that you may not have had any say in how that part was written.

My exception is that this was simply not a case of "taking the law into his own hands". If he detained (arrested) or pursued it might have been. But simple self-defense is not any sort of vigilante action. He was attacked with deadly force and he defended and there was not any element of our judicial system (or "law") involved. People have a right to self-defense that is above any law, according to our Constitution, which affirms that this right is not to be infringed on.

Anyway, keep up the good reporting."

And soon got this reply:

Mr. Buell did nothing illegal by taking "the law into his own hands." He did act immediately by shooting at would-be robbers, one of whom was holding a gun to his son's head. One can have the police take the law in their hands, or one can act in self-defense and take the law in their own hands. The latter was Mr. Buell's appropriate course of action and that action was correctly characterized in the headline.
Sincerely,
Barbara Morgan
Executive Editor

I guess she wrote that headline! Wonder what she thinks it takes to go from "would-be robbers" to actual robbers. I refrain from making negative comments on her views, 'cause I know y'all can just fill in the blanks.

Bart Noir

JohnKSa
December 1, 2005, 10:32 PM
Self-defense is is a right. Anyone may exercise that right without special permission from the police, government or legal system.

The statement "Taking the law into his hands" implies that he has usurped or taken over the duty or responsibility of the legal system, or is operating within a realm that is exclusively the jurisdiction of law enforcement. That is not the case.

Self-defense is not the special right of the state nor does it fall within the unique jurisdiction of the police. Therefore when a citizen exercises his right to self defense, he is NOT "taking the law into his own hands". One might as well accuse a newspaper editor of "taking the law into her own hands" for exercising her right of free speech. It would be a misnomer of equal magnitude.

Furthermore, there is a strong sense of wrongdoing wrapped up in the phrase "taking the law into his own hands". We all know that self-defense is a legal act. Therefore it should not be tainted with a label that implies that it is not.

And by the way, while they might fit the description of "would-be robbers" it would be more accurate to call them "would-be armed robbers" or better yet, "violent criminals".

(Just in case you were going to write her back, I thought I'd give you a head start on your reply...) ;)

7.62x54r
December 1, 2005, 11:44 PM
Chalk one up for the good guys.But up here in Canada,The person defending his propety will be going to jail and the bad guys will be getting a handshake and will be told sorry that they were shot and recived money for pain and sufering and the person who shot you will be going to jail :cuss: :cuss: :cuss: :cuss: :cuss:

drinks
December 2, 2005, 12:05 AM
Another good reason to give Canada back to the French! :rolleyes:

Darth Ruger
December 2, 2005, 01:05 PM
I've never responded to articles such as this one, but I couldn't help myself this time.

Mr. Buell did nothing illegal by taking "the law into his own hands."
Sincerely,
Barbara Morgan
Executive Editor

She's got it all wrong. This sentence demonstrates that she doesn't know what she's talking about. Taking the law into your own hands is illegal, and that's not what he did. I just sent this email to the author of that article and spelled it out as clearly as I could:
I read your article about the self-defense shooting at the Buell's jewelry store. Giving the article the title "Man takes the law into his own hands" is a very inaccurate perception of the situation and only serves to make law-abiding gun owners look bad in the public eye. Taking the law into your own hands is the hallmark of a vigilante, which is illegal in most States that I'm aware of. Mr Buell did nothing illegal. He did not "take the law into his own hands". He simply exercised his right to defend himself against the clear and urgent threat of physical attack by a criminal. Everyone has that right. Exercising it and defending oneself against attack is not taking the law into your own hands. Taking the law into your own hands, what a vigilante would do, would be, for example, if the criminals had shot Mr. Buell's son and/or taken some jewelry, then Mr. Buell got in his car and chased them in an attempt to apprehend them and recover the stolen valuables.

That's what taking the law into your own hands means. It's what a vigilante would do, which is illegal. Mr. Buell did nothing wrong. He defended himself against attack, which is perfectly legal and does not constitute "taking the law into your own hands". Reporters such as yourself that don't understand the differences in the law only serve to misinform the public of it, which, in the end, undermines it. If you consider yourself a responsible journalist, you would print a follow up to that article clarifying the misconception you just helped perpetuate.
I also sent one to the editor, but modified to be directed at her and the newpaper:
I read Bruce Rommel's article... Publishers of news such as yourself that don't understand the differences in the law only serve to misinform the public of it, which, in the end, undermines it. If you consider yourself a responsible reporting establishment, you would print a follow up to that article clarifying the misconception you just helped perpetuate.This obvious lack of knowledge of the law and the misinterpretation of it by the public, as demonstrated above by the editor, has finally broken my 'fed up' barrier. If she or the author of the article reply to my email with more self-contradicting gobbledygook like that, I'm going to reply and keep hammering away at it with as many emails as it takes until I break through that sugar-coated shell of blissninnnyism they've chosen to hide themselves in.

And I'll win. My 'written argument/debate' teacher in college didn't call me the best student he ever had for nothing. Anti's of the world, watch out. You've finally pushed my button. It's time for me to get active in the war against the anti's. Now I'm in the mood to take on Sarah Brady, and I know I could whoop her, too. :fire:

If you enjoyed reading about "Father shoots at robbers" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!