CCW holder ambushed and killed after news publishes his name


PDA






thefitzvh
August 4, 2004, 12:06 PM
Good Grief... (http://www.ohioccw.org/article2286.html)

There needs to be some kind of consequence for whoever decided to release those names.


Days after Plain Dealer ''outing''; CHL-holder Bill Singleton is dead
Posted on Wednesday, August 04 @ 09:49:29 EDT by chad



Compiled from news reports at Cleveland.com, NewsNet5.com, and WKYC.com.

August 4, 2004

Less than a week after the Cleveland Plain Dealer published Bill Singleton's name among a list of people who have chosen to obtain a license to bear arms for self-defense, Mr. Singleton is dead.

When three robbers came to Singleton's business Tuesday morning - they allegedly shot before Singleton had time to react to their demands.

In an exchange of gunfire, Singleton and a 17-year-old assailant were shot in the parking lot outside the United Check Cashing store on Lake Shore Boulevard near East 156th Street. Both later died at Huron Hospital.

“As I was outside I had seen a person stumbling,” Perry Roberts said. “He had his pistol in his hand and he was saying ‘somebody help me, somebody help me’ and he fell down on the ground.”

Cleveland police said Singleton was shot once in the chest, and he shot 17-year-old Rhyan Ikner once in the head. The two accomplices that witnesses saw with Ikner have not been found, said police Lt. Wayne Drummond. It was unclear Tuesday whether Singleton was shot by Ikner or one of the other robbers, Drummond said.

Attacker had criminal past

Ikner was arrested in March on aggravated robbery charges after police said he held up two men with a handgun.

The victims failed to appear in court for trial, and the charges were dropped on June 17. Ikner was released that day from the Cuyahoga County Jail.

Ikner also was found delinquent six times in Juvenile Court since 2001 on charges of drug possession, drug trafficking and assault, court records show.

Victim Was Caring, Respected Citizen

Friends described Singleton, 59, of Solon, as a kind man who was active in the neighborhood merchants association, and who sought to help lift up the nascent retail district surrounding his business, which opened last year.

"He treated everybody so decently," said Ward 11 City Councilman Mike Polensek, who was supposed to meet Singleton on Thursday to talk about the neighborhood.

"[He was a] good man who cared about his family, who cared about his neighborhood [and] made an investment in here," Councilman Mike Polensek said. "Here's another, decent black businessman, an African-American businessman gunned down, for what, because he made an investment in our city. We are being preyed upon by predators and we have got to send a message to the predators that it's over. You can't continue to do this.

It is not yet known Polensek has a history if support for the right of citizens to bear arms for self-defense.

The Need to Bear Arms For Self-Defense

But Singleton also worried that his business would attract thieves. He said he was robbed at least twice, and he was planning to buy surveillance cameras to mount outside the store, said Brian Friedman, head of the Northeast Shores Development Corp.

Records show Singleton received a permit to carry a concealed weapon.

"He was scared," Friedman said. "He had a sneaking suspicion this would happen."

Ray Beverly, who manages the video store across the street, says he could have easily been killed like Singleton because he was just robbed at gunpoint Monday afternoon.

"He took me into the back room, wanted to know where the safe was, cracked me with his gun, broke my fillings," said Beverly. "He took me back to the adult room and told me to stay in there ... that if I came out, he was going to shoot me."

"It became a war zone in two days," said Beverly.

People in the neighborhood are scared and angry.

"It's not safe for any color, any race. It's not safe for nobody any more," said area resident Carolyn Johnson. "I got robbed on East 156th myself."

This isn't the first time Singleton's life was in danger. One morning in June, Bill Singleton was opening his Collinwood check-cashing store when he had to fend off a would-be robber in a skeleton mask. Though the man had a gun, Singleton managed to hold the door shut and lock it before calling police.

Questions which deserve answers

Why did Cleveland Plain Dealer editor Doug Clifton decide that these innocent, law-abiding citizens, desperate to protect themselves from violent criminals that no gun control law or background check can stop, are the ones needing to be treated like persons of suspicion?

Why did Doug Clifton act to put people like Bill Singleton at so much risk by revealing to potential attackers that they are armed, and why do they promise to continue to do so?

Initial accounts say the robbers shot first, ambush-style. Did they know Singleton was armed? Did Bill Singleton die upon Doug Clifton's altar of open records?

If they're really interested in public safety, why doesn't the Plain Dealer spend its precious page space printing names of persons like these attackers, with violent criminal histories?

The questions above may yield answers with time. But this one can never be answered:

How many other would-be victims of Rhyan Ikner will live out their lives because of the heroic actions of Bill Singleton?

--------

One Year Ago This Week: TONY GORDON DIED TRYING TO FOLLOW OSHP CAPT. JOHN BORN'S ADVICE

--------

Click on the "Read More..." link below to read a tasteless letter to the editor from gun ban extremist Toby Hoover supporting the Plain Dealers' actions.



August 3, 2004
Cleveland Plain Dealer

Bravo to The Plain Dealer. It is not easy making a decision that will provoke gun owners.

The publishing of the names of those who have been given permits to carry concealed weapons in nine counties in Northeast Ohio was a noble and responsible community action. Ohio legislators passed the bill this year giving an extra privilege to gun owners to be able to carry their loaded weapons in public space. That put each of us at an unwanted additional risk. The legislators did not provide a way for us to inform ourselves about those we feel put us at that risk. They allowed for the secret carrying of guns and kept the identities of those doing so secret as well.

Any privilege for a few Ohio citizens that affects the entire population should be public record. The gun carriers are not living in isolation. We have a right to know who they are so we can make informed choices. Thanks to The Plain Dealer for providing the service to all of us when the government refused.

Toby Hoover
Toledo

If you enjoyed reading about "CCW holder ambushed and killed after news publishes his name" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!
El Tejon
August 4, 2004, 12:12 PM
Blood on their hands!:fire:

hillbilly
August 4, 2004, 12:17 PM
I smell a major civil lawsuit here.

hillbilly

cordex
August 4, 2004, 12:23 PM
*sigh*

Sindawe
August 4, 2004, 12:35 PM
El Tejon said:

Blood on their hands!

And their heads on a plate!

While there may not be a legally sound connection, the puplishers of the CCW list bears some degreee of moral and ethical responsability for this. Frelling :cuss:

Mark13
August 4, 2004, 12:36 PM
This is very sad, but I doubt those kids did a lot of newspaper reading.

capt_happypants
August 4, 2004, 12:37 PM
If it turns out that Ikner knew that Singleton was a CCW-holder, I want to ask Doug Clifton one question:

"Is the life of one man worth your misguided crusade to out gun owners?"

SMLE
August 4, 2004, 12:42 PM
G-d-s mercy on the dead man and his family.

G-d's justice on the staff of the Cleveland Plain Dealer for their outright complicity in this murder!

:cuss: :fire:

capt_happypants
August 4, 2004, 12:52 PM
Never assume that the bad guys are dumb.

Three attackers versus one victim.

Ikner shoots first without apparent provocation.

Occam's Razor: they knew that Singleton was armed.

Congratulations, you self-righteous bastards. A man is dead because you felt that CCW-holders are a greater threat to society than a felon.

buy guns
August 4, 2004, 01:25 PM
i think we all knew it was only a matter of time before something like this happened. i hope the paper that published his name fries.

Black Snowman
August 4, 2004, 01:35 PM
What's sad is that I'm sure many anti's will read the article, and say "Good, two more gun owners off the streets!" :barf:

Carlos
August 4, 2004, 01:49 PM
Going to be following this one closely. I want to see heads roll over this.

Anybody got the editor's email address?

goalie
August 4, 2004, 02:00 PM
The e-mail address is in the first post on the first page of the thread related to publishing of permit holder's names.

http://www.thehighroad.org/showthread.php?s=&threadid=94803

I just e-mailed myself. Boy was it hard to remain polite.

mrapathy2000
August 4, 2004, 02:01 PM
sad. hope the paper fries. wonder if lawmakers or governor is liable. doubt it.

wonder if someone could do time for something like this. although the info was not illegal. info resulting in a murder being released. mans life in danger people trying to kill him/harm him gets CHL paper releases name and he gets murdered. god forbid serial killer uses the list.

will definately save the news article cause in my state papers release the names of people with CHL.

hso
August 4, 2004, 02:28 PM
I'll be the odd man out on this -

I don't see any direct or indirect connection between the publication of the CCW list, including Mr. Singleton, and the shooting during a robbery attempt.

I would more likely suspect that the criminal scum came back better prepared to get in to Mr. Singleton's premises and, probably, to murder him in the process. This due to his keeping the Skeleton Mask attacker out of the business.

If the accomplices are captured and they reveal that they got the information that Mr. Singleton was a CCW holder and that's why they carried guns and why they shot first then I hope the paper is open to enormous law suites if not a class action type suite as well (El T??).

2nd Amendment
August 4, 2004, 02:48 PM
The attacker with the skeleton mask was at a different store from the one where Singleton died. As such I doubt very seriously they targeted a different store expecting to nail the guy from the first one. I also doubt they were armed "because" Singleton was. At least one had a history of armed robbery. But I have no doubt the punk fired first based on the Plan Dealer's article.

If I were Singleton's family I would already be working on the lawsuit and it would be big enough to accomplish one thing: Utterly bankrupting the paper and the editor.

Carlos
August 4, 2004, 03:01 PM
I'll be sending Clifton a nicely worded letter tonight, when I get home.

Personally, I 'm positive the posting of names had everything to do with Singleton's death.

It gives me great pleasure that Cliffy is starting to suffer a little pain for his actions.

:)

sendec
August 4, 2004, 03:27 PM
The guy is dead because three hoods shot him - Jumping to conclusions before all the facts are in might not help anyone in the long run.

flatrock
August 4, 2004, 03:37 PM
I'm very unhappy with the irresponsible actions of this newspaper editor. I even called his house and left him a message telling him so.

However, I don't see any evidence linking this shooting to his publishing of the CHL License holders names.

Integrity in how news is reported isn't a one way street, and I find that inferring that the editor is responsible for this man's death without any evidnce linking the incidents is very distasteful.

I am a member of the Ohioans for Concealed Carry. They do good work. I don't however approve of how they presented this particular bit of news.

goalie
August 4, 2004, 03:58 PM
I agree that it is unwise to jump to conclusions, however, I can say with 100% certainty that the publishing of this man's name in the paper contributed nothing to society while possibly contributing to his death.

Glamdring
August 4, 2004, 04:12 PM
A point to consider. If the goblins were smart enough to read paper and make connection between a person in print and one on the street (how exactly did they make the connection? Doubt the info in the paper was organized in a fashion to make it easy to sort for criminal purpose...wasn't sorted by income or such was it? most likely sorted by alphabet or geographic order) and attack three to one how could they be dumb enough to lose one of their own??

Sounds more like a typical attack by goblins. They are perhaps "street smart" but not skilled with guns or gun related tactics. And learned the hard way what happens when you attack someone who is prepared to fight back (ie guns are not magic wands).

***
If you really want to influence people in your direction being obnoxious or vulgar in comments to non gun owners, fence sitters, or anti gun people isn't going to help. When you do that you feed their fears.

Most anti gun people IMHO fear damage a gun can do. Which shows they are brighter than some people I have seen in gun shops and gun ranges (pointing "empty" guns at people :banghead: ), at least they know guns are ALWAYS dangerous.

I suspect anti gun people also know people are always dangerous, but a gun is a force multiplier. An armed person is more dangerous than an unarmed person, in immediate sense. If your at a gun shop or gun range and someone starts acting deranged, say they start cussing out and badmouthing someone else, wouldn't your alert level go up? Wouldn't you view them as a possible threat?

When you are vulgar/abusive/obnoxious to a non gun person you are acting like a possible threat to them. You should expect them to respond to threats with force (politcal, legal, etc).

I am getting upset over the immature knee jerk responses being poster here on THR on some threads. You do realize that most anyone can view this board??? How do you think an honest fence sitter would respond to some of these posts?

JohnBT
August 4, 2004, 04:13 PM
"However, I don't see any evidence linking this shooting to his publishing of the CHL License holders names."

Me either.

Now, if the only thing they stole was his gun, then maybe I'd believe they saw his name and figured they'd steal 'em a gun. Or should I say another gun. Buy if they had a gun, why...oh nevermind.

John

Glamdring
August 4, 2004, 04:16 PM
What I would like to see come out of this sad event, is a change in the attitude of the paper. That would accomplish a lot IMO.

El Tejon
August 4, 2004, 04:27 PM
flatrock and others who fail to see the evidence, I would argue that presentation of evidence is exactly why one has a criminal and civil trial and before that a proper police investigation.

The editors of this newspaper should be held responsible civily and criminally. They cannot be allowed to hide behind the alleged "public's right to know."

I hope the citizens of Ohio call for an immediate criminal investigation of this matter.

feedthehogs
August 4, 2004, 04:28 PM
While the actions of the editor are deplorable for printing the names, I agree with those that see no connection between the two at this point in time.

If you ask those in prison about facing an armed private citizen, they would not.
I see an armed robbery that would have ended with only the owner being dead if he had not been armed and 3 scum bags roaming the street.

Its a very sad situation but if the AG's would look at it correctly, being armed eliminated one bad guy from hurting someone else for ever.

Molon Labe
August 4, 2004, 04:30 PM
While I abhor the practice of the CPD publishing the names of CCW holders, and think the law should be changed to make it a crime, I do not see any evidence that the killer knew the victim was a CCW holder. Even if he did know, I don’t see any evidence that he killed him because he was a CCW holder.

We get very irate when an antigunner (in an effort to make a political statement) tries to link an “effect” to a particular “cause” when such a link does not exist. Yet when we do it, it’s O.K.

It’s apparent OFCC is trying to use this incident to prove a causational relationship where one does not exist. Shame on them.

feedthehogs
August 4, 2004, 04:37 PM
El Tejon,

What is the evidence in that posted article that links the news papers action directly to the killing that would lead to an arrest and prosecution as you suggest?

Brett Bellmore
August 4, 2004, 04:45 PM
A point to consider. If the goblins were smart enough to read paper and make connection between a person in print and one on the street (how exactly did they make the connection? Doubt the info in the paper was organized in a fashion to make it easy to sort for criminal purpose...wasn't sorted by income or such was it? most likely sorted by alphabet or geographic order) and attack three to one how could they be dumb enough to lose one of their own??

The lists are by county, sorted alphabetically. And they're in the online edition, so an enterprising criminal could download them all in a few minutes, and check if someone they're considering robbing is on the list, as a routine part of casing the intended crime scene.

JPL
August 4, 2004, 04:47 PM
Agree, I'm seeing no clear connection between the two events.

dadman
August 4, 2004, 05:09 PM
Terrible how Singleton died.
At least he took one of the scum down.

How long or often does the morons at the Cleveland Plain Dealer publish the CCW names?

moa
August 4, 2004, 05:19 PM
IIRC, when I looked at some of the lists of CCW holders, by County, all I saw was a name and maybe the age of the person. So, unless someone has an unusual name, I think it would be hard to make a connection.

I imagine the globins had their guns at the ready, and Singleton looked like he was reaching for a weapon, which he probably was, an one of them (at least) shot first. So, I think they had the drop on Singleton.

They may very well assumed beforehand that he might be armed.

gunsmith
August 4, 2004, 05:25 PM
Clifton is the editor of The Plain Dealer.

Contact him at:

dclifton@plaind.com, 216-999-4123

Douglas Clifton
19 Shoreby Dr.
Cleveland, OH 44108-1161
Tel.: (216) 761-6577

And his secretary is insisting their is no way to know that the perp read the paper. When asked is that good enough for her that just because we don't know yet if the perp did in fact read Bill's name in the paper and put 2 & 2 together. The secretary is OK with the ambiguity-when I told her I feel sorry for her-she hung up on me.
God!
There is good cause to believe the paper is responsible for killing people!
Are they able to look Bill's family in the eye?

gunsmith
August 4, 2004, 05:37 PM
The secretary of Doug Clifton (editor of kill gun owners newspaper)

Told me that a few weeks ago Bill Singleton was robbed and that the story was in the paper. Undoubtedly the perps read about their exploits,probably even snipped it out of the paper to show their friends.
Being in the business of strong arm robbery they would have been interested in who has CCW permits.
They knew they had robbed Bill Singleton BEFORE he had a permit.
(the story was in the paper) They knew his name...do the math!

pinblaster
August 4, 2004, 05:40 PM
:fire: Do you mean to tell me it's not against the law to publish CCW holders names ?! I think it's a gross invasion of privicy , it's nobodys m***** f****** business but your own . This is unbelieveable ! I would be looking for a lawyer . As for that imbecile Toby Hoover , he has the right to his opinion , no matter how utterly stupid it is .

dadman
August 4, 2004, 06:00 PM
My e-mail to Mr. Clifton of the Cleveland Plain Dealer:

Mr. Doug Clifton,

I recently read of the terrible shooting and death of Mr. Bill Singleton.
http://www.ohioccw.org/article2286.html
Almost as terrible as Mr. Singleton's death is the Cleveland Plain Dealer and it's editor publishing the names of CCW holders.
Why doesn't the Cleveland Plain Dealer put more effort in publishing the names of criminals like Ryhan Ikner instead of harrasing lawful citizens such as Mr. Singleton?
At the cost of his own life, Mr. Singleton was able to prevent Ikner to cause further harm to other citizens of the Cleveland area and Ohio.
I demand that the Cleveland Plain Dealer start acting responsibly and cease publishing the names of CCW holders. Failure to cease publishing the names will show that the paper has low journalistic standards, and disregard for the lives of law abiding Ohio citizens.

xxxxx xxxxxx

Michigander
August 4, 2004, 06:18 PM
I think it's a gross invasion of privicy , it's nobodys m***** f****** business but your own .

And there's the crux of the problem... it's not even the State's business in the first place!!!

:cuss:

pinblaster
August 4, 2004, 06:26 PM
Amem to that , brother . I like the way you think !

mrapathy2000
August 4, 2004, 06:28 PM
dont know what I was thinking in my earlier post. please dont tar n feather me on privacy issue. need to go read constitution/BOR I guess.

tar n feather smiley yet? guess it would be more of a frown.

Molon Labe
August 4, 2004, 06:36 PM
I also emailed the author:

--------------------------------

Me: While I abhor the practice of the CPD publishing the names of CCW holders, and think the law should be changed to make it a crime, I do not see any evidence the killer knew the victim was a CCW holder. Even if he did know, I don’t see any evidence that he killed him because he was a CCW holder.

We get very irate when an antigunner (in an effort to make a political statement) tries to link an “effect” to a particular “cause” when such a link does not exist. Yet when we do it, it’s O.K.

It’s apparent OFCC is trying to use this incident to prove a causational relationship where one does not exist. Shame on you.

--------------------------------

Response from article's author:

I appreciate your thoughts.

I want you to know, however, that before I even wrote the article, I
had people emailing to notify me that Mr. Singleton was on the list.

The headline is pretty straight forward - he was on the list; he is now
deceased. The headline at the top ties to the questions and
statements at the bottom -

- Did the criminals know he might be armed? (we don't know yet)
- Does the Plain Dealer realize they are putting others at risk by
publishing these names? (they won't say)

Is the Plain Dealer in any way responsible? We don't know yet. We
certainly don't say yet. We are asking the question, because it
deserves to be asked.

Last week, I had reporters asking me if I would feel partially
responsible if someone went to Mr. Clifton's house and hurt him or his
wife after we posted his address. I answered by saying that first of
all, his address was available in the phone book. So they said what
if the criminal says he got it from the website? I said if that
happens, call me back for comment. They persisted. I said it is far
more likely that someone on the list would get hurt, and I asked if
they would pose this same question to the Plain Dealer when it happens.

This article is a not-so-subtle effort at forcing that question to be
asked.

This is a tough job. Wish I got paid... :)

--------------------------------

Me: Thanks for the prompt and courteous reply. And yes, it would be nice if you got paid! Your volunteerism is much admired.

The problem with the article is that it *implies* a cause & effect relationship where such does not exist. Though the article may not come out and say it, the *implication* is that Ikner read Singleton's name in the CPD and killed him *because* Singleton was a CCW holder.

We get very mad when the liberals do this. "An innocent person was shot with a gun. Therefore, it must be the gun manufacturer's fault. Let's sue the gun manufacturer!" Yet when *we* do the same, it's O.K.

Liberals are notorious for making false implications. Why stoop to their level? We should take the high road.

Thanks

--------------------------------

Response from article's author:

I modified it some, even before you wrote back. See what you think now.

I guess I see it not as an implication but as a question. We want to ask the question. We do not want to imply, because we don't yet know.

Thoughts?

c_yeager
August 4, 2004, 06:39 PM
"Is the life of one man worth your misguided crusade to out gun owners?"

His answer would almost certainly be "yes, the ends justify the means".

However i don't see any way of connected the paper to the shooting. And even if there WAS a connection the fact is that what the paper published was TRUE INFROMATION that was freely made available to the media from the state. The truth is a defense against any kind of law suit in this case. The media has no responsibility to withold information that they recieved through legal means.

The fact is that the paper and the state did not release this information with the INTENT of anyone getting harmed. Kinda like i go to the gunshop and buy a pistol without the intent of shooting anyone.

information is just as POTENTIALLY dangerous as anything you can buy in a gunstore, and just as constitutionally protected.

dadman
August 4, 2004, 07:09 PM
Thanks to OCCF and others here for bringing to my attention the death of Singleton.
Remember to play nice when going against the likes of the Plain Squeeler, Diane F., Chucky S., John & John, etc.

Standing Wolf
August 4, 2004, 07:20 PM
Ikner was arrested in March on aggravated robbery charges after police said he held up two men with a handgun.
The victims failed to appear in court for trial, and the charges were dropped on June 17. Ikner was released that day from the Cuyahoga County Jail.
Ikner also was found delinquent six times in Juvenile Court since 2001 on charges of drug possession, drug trafficking and assault, court records show.

The people who kept turning it loose should be held fully accountable—but won't, of course: they get to hid behind the long skirts of the so-called "criminal justice" system.

El Rojo
August 4, 2004, 07:39 PM
Wow, I was rather surprised to see this thread, I almost thought it was a hoax. I too can't make a clear connection between the publishing and Mr. Singleton's murder, at this time. However, it will put the heat on the newspaper, that is for darn sure. Interesting and sad all in one.

feedthehogs
August 4, 2004, 07:39 PM
They knew his name...do the math!

Must be that new math..........


The people who kept turning it loose should be held fully accountable

You can't prosecute if the victims don't show up. Not the legal systems fault.

It seems that when a gun supporter is involved in a legal matter, most everyone here wants to give them the benefit of the doubt based on nothing but a newspaper article.

When the opposite is the case, most want to hang on the same type of evidence.

We expect innocent until proven guilty, but that's too good for the other guy.

Can't have it both ways fellas..............

Shadowfane
August 4, 2004, 07:45 PM
Jeff at Ohioccw.org is a pretty good guy. He listens pretty easily. (he's also a registered instructor for the Ohio CCW Course)...

It was my understanding that the law was SPECIFICALLY WRITTEN to make this type of publication NOT available to the Press.....

I understood that it was to be OK for the paper to request, one at a time in specific cases whether the person involved was a CCW holder.

I am NOT happy with the whole development.

shadowfane

madcowburger
August 4, 2004, 08:32 PM
A good man, Bill Singleton, is dead, murdered, because the Cleveland Plain Dealer in general, and that P.O.S. Clifton, in particular essentially fingered him, set him up, for a hit. His blood is on their hands just as surely as if they'd put a contract out on him. The same applies to every permit holder who gets hit in a similar fashion from now on.

It's time to face the fact that these people, people like Clifton, these God-damned, anti-American commie Kerry-voting b@$+@rds *hate* us and want us dead, pure and simple.

They hate and fear ordinary, honest Americans exercising their right to bear arms FAR more than they fear the sort of thugs who murdered Bill Singleton, practically at their behest. Hell, they *like* thugs, muggers, carjackers, dope dealers, pimps, rapists, and thieves. They treat them like they were some sort of valuable, protected, endangered species -- endangered by victims who might conceivably shoot back, that is.

I hope some way can be found to make the Cleveland Plain Dealer gang pay a terrible price. If not in this world, then the next.

MCB

gunsmith
August 4, 2004, 08:38 PM
I grew up around the type of people who commit murder and strong arm robbery.
As a kid I lived in one of the last "Irish Ghetto's" of New York.
Some of the kids I wen't to school with were in a gang called the westies,they are in prison or dead and they are (were) psycho killers.
Thinking that criminals are stupid and do not read newspapers is imprudent at best. The killers in my old neighborhood were masterfull chess players and voracious readers, (besides planning crimes and working out they're aint much else to do in prison except chess and reading).

The masked criminals probably were the same folks who tried to rob him a few weeks ago,Bill Singleton's name was in the paper as the guy they tried to rob
then his name appeared in the paper a few weeks later as a CCW holder.

Now he's dead,thanks to the "Plain Squealer".

We need to do more then email the editor,we need to call advertisers and let them know they have lost our $$$

The paper needs to be put out of circulation.

If you prefer you can say that there is no proof that the criminals didn't know he had a CCW-I guess that some good Germans didn't know about the death camps either-eh?

gunsmith
August 4, 2004, 08:44 PM
At least some of us have commen sense!

JPL
August 4, 2004, 09:06 PM
OK, I'm confused...

One of the things that I've seen said here as a defense for CCW is that criminals are a lot less likely to attack somone if they think he or she might be armed.

I've also read interviews and statistics gathered from criminals who say that the last, very last thing they want to encounter is an armed person, because they could get shot.

The refrain now seems to be that this person was targeted specifically because he was armed, and that the criminals put two and two together, seeing this guy's name in a listing of permit holders, and then specifically seeking him out because of that (even though at this time there's simply no indication to belive that).

Could it be that he was targeted simply because he had a business that is known to carry very large sums of cash?

And it actually had nothing to do with the fact that he was armed?

I have to ask...

Which is it, then?

Does having a gun make you more, or less, of a target?

I seem to be seeing it called both ways, here.

gunsmith
August 4, 2004, 10:00 PM
It's not black and white. In NY I know that the criminals of my youth had no fear of "vics" (victims) they would gang up 10 on one and break your head if you resisted or for fun even if you gave up.
They had little fear of guns because they knew that most folks in the city didn't have them.

I suspect that they knew he had a gun so they shot him first.
If you don't know who has a gun then when you go to rob the little old lady in a wheelchair you might get shot.

It's not knowing who has a gun that criminals (and politicians) fear.

Criminals know that a gun is not magic and if you kill before the victim has a chance to defend themselves you get cash and a gun.
I think the criminal was looking for cash and a gun.

I was watching Americas Most Wanted a week or so ago and a bank robber had shot a cop just to steal his gun,I think the same thing happened to Bill

Michigander
August 4, 2004, 10:13 PM
Once again:

The problem is not the newspaper.

The problem is that this information is collected in the first place!

Whether or not the published list of CHL holders had any part of this incident does not change the fact that We The People should not be forced to supply this type of information to the State to begin with!

Let's place blame where it belongs: Our government (us)!

buy guns
August 4, 2004, 10:16 PM
Criminals know that a gun is not magic and if you kill before the victim has a chance to defend themselves you get cash and a gun.

exactly. if you know your victim is unarmed you most likely wont have to use your gun because they will most likely cooperate.

if you know your victim is carrying you can assume they will fight back. this means there is a chance of you getting caught and/or killed so if you kill your victim right away they cant fight back and they cant be a witness. this makes this scenario more profitable and less risky then the first one and it doesnt take a mastermind to figure it out.

AZRickD
August 4, 2004, 10:48 PM
http://www.plaindealer.com/contact/index.php

The anti-gun activist's (Toby Hoover)

http://www.ohioceasefire.org/
Phone: (419) 244-7442
Fax: (419) 244-7440
E-mail: ocagv@yahoo.com

madcowburger
August 4, 2004, 11:00 PM
At least Bill went down fighting and actually took one of Plain Squealer Doug Clifton's precious pets with him. A First Class Valkyrie ride straight to Valhalla for Bill.

Here's to him. I'd toast him in mead (preferably from a newspaper editor's hollowed-out skull), but beer in a lit-up Lord of the Rings/Burger King goblet will have to do.

Clifton and all the rest of the dirty rats and fingermen at the Plain Squealer can take a ride in the opposite direction.

MCB

P95Carry
August 4, 2004, 11:11 PM
Any privilege for a few Ohio citizens that affects the entire population should be public record. The gun carriers are not living in isolation. We have a right to know who they are so we can make informed choices. Leaving aside whether the nasmes were read or not .. and it's a sad case regardless ....... this Toby Hoover is so darned typical .... and keeps his head firmly where the light is real dim.

Notice his use of the word ''privelage'' .. he obviously sees people as having no rights. I wonder whether he considers his rights of importance. And what pray are ''informed choices'' .. sheesh, that's a loaded statement (?threat?). Might an ''informed choice'' actually be .... to shoot a CCW first - ''just in case''. Sorry, facetious comment but - I have to wonder. Maybe it's just finding a way to apply pressure, so as to make sure a guy loses his job - or doesn't get one at all.

Why oh why - do these sorta people not concentrate their energies on the bad guys .. and only the bad guys - they just might do some good for a change.

madcowburger
August 4, 2004, 11:31 PM
Because they *like* bad guys, P95.

It's the good guys -- real, honest, Americans, exercising their rights -- that the Plain Squealers and Quislings and traitors hate and fear and want to see dead.

MCB

treeprof
August 4, 2004, 11:37 PM
Might there be some special gang status attached to having killed a man who you knew ahead of time was armed?

El Rojo
August 4, 2004, 11:47 PM
Gunsmith said,I was watching Americas Most Wanted a week or so ago and a bank robber had shot a cop just to steal his gun,I think the same thing happened to BillHmmmm, I am glad you think that. Too bad it doesn't appear to be backed up by anything other than speculation. And if they were indeed targeting him for his gun, why didn't they get it? “As I was outside I had seen a person stumbling,” Perry Roberts said. “He had his pistol in his hand and he was saying ‘somebody help me, somebody help me’ and he fell down on the ground.”From his cold dead hands, they didn't get his gun.

Why the sudden shift to liberal, knee jerk, emotional reactions around here? I expect this from the other side and I am disappointed to see it creeping into our ranks.

Coronach
August 4, 2004, 11:58 PM
One of the things that prevents some people from taking the RKBA movement seriously is our tendency to get the cart ahead of the horse.

What we know from the writeups thus far (and all of my usual caveats apply to this) is this:

1. Singleton was gunned down in an armed robbery.

2. Singleton had a CCW, and was included on the Plain Dealer's idiotic list.

3. The robbers showed somewhat unusual aggression in that they fired first, seemingly without preamble or provocation.

Note that #3 is dicey as far as "knowing" goes.

The list of things we don't know is somewhat large. We are perfectly willing to assume that the BGs knew that Singleton was armed, and we conclude that they knew it because of the Plain Dealer's list. Thats fine...but there are several scenarios (Occam's Razor notwithstanding) that would not require knowledge on the Perps' part that Singleton was armed...and even if they did, there are many ways to know it besides reading the newspaper.

Consider this, too. There are two main reasons why someone gets a CCW permit:

1. They believe in preparedness and our RKBA, regardless of their own personal level of risk.

2. They could care less about RKBA in the general sense, but engage in seriously risky endevours (running a cash business in a crappy neighborhood, for instance), and want to have some protection on hand.

The #2 group is at a pretty high risk for serious physical harm from armed attack. Members of this group are at risk regardless of the Plain Dealer's decision to print the list (though, that act can certainly raise this risk). So...we have a list of people, many of whom are at an elevated risk of robbery or assault. Now when someone from this list of at-risk people is assaulted/robbed, it is because the list was published?

We're seeing what we want to see.

That said, this certainly could be a direct result of the newspaper printing the list. Absolutely it could. I just need to see something more than an OH CCWer being assaulted as 'proof.'

Goalie said it best:
I agree that it is unwise to jump to conclusions, however, I can say with 100% certainty that the publishing of this man's name in the paper contributed nothing to society while possibly contributing to his death.Exactly. If they hadn't published that list, we would not be having this discussion...and maybe Singleton would still be alive.

Mike

Coronach
August 5, 2004, 12:00 AM
Why the sudden shift to liberal, knee jerk, emotional reactions around here? I expect this from the other side and I am disappointed to see it creeping into our ranks.Creeping into our ranks? Did you just get here or something? ;)

Mike

gunsmith
August 5, 2004, 12:19 AM
Too bad it doesn't appear to be backed up by anything other than speculation.

backed up by experience .

I Talked to Doug Cliftons secretary today.
She told me that Bill had been Robbed a few weeks ago and it was REPORTED IN THE NEWSPAPER!!
So you guys postulate that the guys who robbed Bill a few weeks ago would not be interested in looking at an article about their exploits???

Most reasonable streetwise people would say that of course they read the article about the attempted robbery that they committed.

If they read the article they knew his name and it's not a far stretch to them finding out about his CCW due to the list in the same paper they read a few weeks ago.

I have lived in Brooklyn,I have a bridge you can buy-cheap-!!

madcowburger
August 5, 2004, 12:26 AM
I don't know about liberal or knee-jerk, but emotional, yeah, I'll cop to that. When I first found out about this I was so angry I actually shook like I was cold.

I for one believe the worst about Plain Squealer Doug Clifton and all his little pals.

I think things like what happened to Bill Singleton are *exactly* what they *hoped* would happen, and counted on happening, when they ratted out Bill and every other CCW permit holder in Ohio.

They set Bill up for a preemptive ambush, and they're hoping much the same or worse will happen to every permit holder and the families of every permit holder. Clifton and the rest of the Plain Squealers are no better than mob fingermen.

Like I said before, these people *hate* us and want to see us dead. If they can't arrange to get us knocked off by regular criminals, they'll settle for getting us killed by armed agents of one or another level of government, or sentenced to the government's rape-factory gulags for the rest of our hopefully-short lives.:fire:

MCB

sendec
August 5, 2004, 12:54 AM
//Like I said before, these people *hate* us and want to see us dead. If they can't arrange to get us knocked off by regular criminals, they'll settle for getting us killed by armed agents of one or another level of government, or sentenced to the government's rape-factory gulags for the rest of our hopefully-short lives//

Wow. Just, wow.

sevenpoint62mm
August 5, 2004, 01:20 AM
:barf:

goalie
August 5, 2004, 01:30 AM
Sendec,

While what madcowburger said may seem over the top at first, what other explanation is there for an educated editor of a newspaper to publish those names? I cannot believe that it is just ignorance or stupidity, because too many other states have CCW laws and have had no problems with the law-abiding population that accquires such a license, and it is the editor's job to know that. Whether or not the paper actually wanted to get someone killed is a moot point, since the evidence would lead me to believe that the paper definately wanted to make life difficult for those who obtained a permit through the publishing of their names in the paper. When a lesser degree of ill-intent leads to a great degree of ill, the responsibility is the same as if the ill intent was great all along. Just because you only wanted to rob someone with some buddies does not mean you are any less guilty of murder when one of those buddies decides to off the witness to the robbery.

Coronach
August 5, 2004, 02:15 AM
Intimidation.

"You wanna carry a gun? I'm gonna publish your name. See if you like your neighbors knowing that you pack heat. And all the other parents at Little League. And church. And at work."

Personally, I think it is merely a play on the average person's aversion to having their name up in lights. I doubt highly that he is happy that someone may have been shot over it...especially since it could make him and his paper the defendants in a lawsuit. Probably he never believed (and/or currently does not believe) that such a thing is even possible.

Not that I like the guy, or anything. I think he's an idiot. And evil, in the sense that he wants to trample on the rights of others, seemingly like a spoiled child who didn't get his way. I just don't think he's evil in the sense that he's gleefully chuckling about an innocent man being murdered. Though who knows. He might eat puppies for hors d'oerves, too.

Hyperbole doesn't get us anywhere.

JMO,
Mike

Wildalaska
August 5, 2004, 02:16 AM
While what madcowburger said may seem over the top at first, what other explanation is there for an educated editor of a newspaper to publish those names?

May seem over the top? May? Your kidding, right?

Thats what kills me about the pro gun movement, with right on our side, we still manage to sound as foolish as the MoveOn crowd..

Dudes, here is a chance to illustrate the reasonableness of our postion and the unreasonableness of theirs...bet its all getting spoiled with nasty letters and tinfoil hat allegations..

WildandtroublewithcausationinanylawsuitAlaska

madcowburger
August 5, 2004, 02:43 AM
Well, now that I've calmed down a little bit, I wonder if maybe I did kind of overstate my case a little. Sometimes I do get a little carried away and go a little too far when something like this happens and really p!$$es me off.

But even if Clifton & Friends didn't actually want, and plan for, Bill Singleton and others like him to get chopped this way, they displayed a clear and depraved indiffference to that very real and very predictable possibility.

But, like I said before, at least Bill went down fighting, and took one of the Plain Squealers' precious little pets with him. That counts for something. I re-nominate Bill for a First Class Valkyrie ride straight to Valhalla. I re-nominate Doug Clifton and the rest of the Plain Squealers for a ride in the opposite direction, the soulless b@$+@rds.

MCB

stealthmode
August 5, 2004, 05:17 AM
oh man thats awful, why does the media think it has absoute right to do anything they want.:fire:

hammer4nc
August 5, 2004, 07:35 AM
Concluding a cause-effect relationship between the plain dealer story, and the murder of this guy;

is a whole lot less tenuous than:

concluding that open-carry (where legal) should not be practiced because it scares the sheeple.

Logic consistency check is in order for some members...playing the tinfoil card on everything you disagree with --> anemic, weak argument.:scrutiny:

BeLikeTrey
August 5, 2004, 08:13 AM
reasons for putting out names.

1) Attention, doesn't matter if it is bad attention it is still attention for the paper
2) Makes for one hell of an anti-gun statement.
3) they hope it deters others from getting a CCW based on possible "outting" (by the way, technically, none of these guys named are "conealed" now eh?)
4) They have a high probability for generating future "News" by doing this. such as "see CCW doesn't help you" or "gunfighting in the streets" it's a win-win for the paper. More news and more than likely putting us in the "Wyatt Eaarp" gunslinger category that seems to be so popular.

reasoning I think the Dealer is responsible
1) they guy was robbed before and his name was in the paper BOTH times for the robbery and CCW
2)He wasn't attacked by just one. They came in numbers to overcome his CCW advantage. I think they had a high probability of knowing he was armed.
3) (if correct) they shot him immediately? hmmm sounds like they knew
... It ain't 100% certain but I'd say the scale is tipped toward the fact that they knew he was armed.

feedthehogs
August 5, 2004, 08:15 AM
Why the sudden shift to liberal, knee jerk, emotional reactions around here? I expect this from the other side and I am disappointed to see it creeping into our ranks.

The very reason the rest of us have to work harder to present gun owners as decent people.

Get rid of the politicians who write the laws that allow the newspaper to do what it did.

********************************

It was just reported that the crimminals in my area formed a book of the week club and chess matches in between the drive by's.

They felt their ivy league educations were going to waste and the stock clubs just weren't cutting it anymore.

Missouri Mule
August 5, 2004, 08:23 AM
This is gonna get real messy!!!!!!!!!!

As it should!

hillbilly
August 5, 2004, 08:35 AM
I have read the thread, and still say Civil Lawsuit, huge Civil Lawsuit.

Criminally, there is nothing here.

You cannot prove, beyond a shadow of a doubt, that the thugs used the newspaper's release of info to premeditate and plan the murder.

Unless, you can get the thugs to testify to such....and you aren't going to get that to happen.

I mean, who would plea bargain a couple of murderers down to go after a newspaper?

However, in Civil court, you don't have to prove "beyond a shadow of a doubt" only a preponderance of the evidence.

You can show a preponderance to a certain amount of culpability.

This is exactly the thing made for Civil Lawsuit.

And the pocketbook is where to hit a newspaper, any way. Get all their money, get the editor's job.

hillbilly

Double Naught Spy
August 5, 2004, 08:49 AM
I find it amazing that so many of y'all have assumed this guy was shot and killed because his name was in the newspaper. As noted, he wasn't exactly in a good neighborhood and has been robbed/attemptedly robbed on more than one occasion in the past.

You don't know that the robber was aware of the list
You don't know of the robber read the list
You don't know if the robber read the list if he then acted on the information on the list.

And yet you have decided the list is somehow responsible for the guy's death. Nobody has come up with any information to show cause and effect or even a remote connection between the robber and the guy's name being published. Amazing.

Yes, the robber was aggressive. As noted, this sometimes happens. Some robbers like to shoot first and then make demands. Some shoot first by accident because they are not trained to handle guns and have their friggin' finger on the trigger and end up with an ND. I have seen some funny videos of robbers shooting themselves and their cohorts because of this.

goalie
August 5, 2004, 08:51 AM
I want to clarify my position a little. I am NOT buying into the belief of an actual cause and effect relationship in these events without further evidence. I AM saying that, regardless of whether or not the paper was a factor in this murder, the paper had nothing but ill intent when it published that man's name.

OF
August 5, 2004, 08:54 AM
The two scum who got away know the truth, and likely some of their friends know also.

I'm with gunsmith, it is highly likely that the thugs saw the article on the original robbery - they would have been looking for any news they could have gotten to see if there were suspects and check on the investigation into their crime.

In those searches, it is also likely they would have seen the list.

However, it is not provable and while unlikely, it is still possible the thugs were in the dark about Mr. Singleton's CCW status. For that reason, that there is a doubt, we cannot implicate Clifton ( :barf: ) in the murder.

We can, however, reason that even if the list did not contribute to the murder, there is a strong circumstantial possibility that it did and there is a strong possibility that it could in future murders.

The 'Plain Dealer' and Clifton need to be held responsible for their vile self-serving and malicious behavior that willfully endangers the lives of others.

- Gabe

El Rojo
August 5, 2004, 09:57 AM
backed up by experienceExperience in what? You have had your name published in a newspaper for having CCW and have been shot before? Probably not. You must mean you have heard of this happening in Brooklyn a lot when you lived there. Oh wait, no one has heard of this happening before. So what experience do you have that will lead us to without a doubt know his name in the paper cost him his life? None. Speculation, yes. Gut feeling, yes. Good guess, yes. Proof, none.

I think regardless of his CCW status, he was going to get robbed here. Assuming the motive was robbery and not revenge or some other previous disagreement with these three. Again, we don't have all of the facts. Now it is possible that they guys saw his name in the paper and that made them decide to shoot first instead of maybe trying to let the guy live. That is a real possiblity. However, until some evidence comes out suggesting they used the news paper as motive, we don't have a lot of go on. That doesn't mean I don't think someone ought to be talking to a lawyer about suing the heck out of the paper. The sad thing is this cost someone their life. The good news is Bill Clifton hopefully isn't sleeping well as he contemplates the lawsuit that lays ahead. More importantly, this is just what we need to give some emotion to some upcoming legislation regarding these records.

gunsmith
August 5, 2004, 11:09 AM
sentenced to the government's rape-factory gulags for the rest of our hopefully-short lives

Rings true for New Yorkers. Unless you are a wealthy liberal junkie like David Crosby, if you get busted for mere possession of a handgun you WILL get a sentence to NY City's well known Government rape center, Rikers Island.

The guys who attempted to rob Bernie Goetz admitted they were robbing him.
Bernie still did a year on Rikers-just because he had a gun.

Backed up by experience

How many of you doubting Thomas's were in the same Parish as future Westie members?

Can I prove that Bills killer read the paper?
Nope.
Will I bet they did?
Yup!
:rolleyes:

El Tejon
August 5, 2004, 01:11 PM
To those of you that claim that no criminal prosecution is merited, would your answer be the same if someone published the name of a police office, his address, and his family members and that police officer was later murdered by a criminal?

TDPerk
August 5, 2004, 01:23 PM
By Double Naught Spy

Some robbers like to shoot first and then make demands.

Of planning on making demands of a corpse? I suspect most robbers know that if you shoot someone carefully from ambush, they will die straight away.

Yours, TDP

dadman
August 5, 2004, 04:04 PM
Maybe I read a different article. Maybe my comprehension thingy in my brain is wired differently.
I am not getting from the articles that I read that The Squeeler is directly responsible.
From the first link: It is not yet known if the Cleveland Plain Dealer's actions even remotely played into this tragedy. But the harsh reality of the situation begs the question:...
Maybe it would make some of you feel better if Ohion's For Concealed Carry sanitized their article? Don't want to piss off The Squeeler now.

The shift in this topic from an exposed CCW holders death to an emphasis on "don't drag the Squeeler in" is pathetic. Are some of you that say "no cause and effect/don't assume" apply this same reasoning to everyday life?

The Dealer should be exposed for exposing the holder names.
If the Dealer wants to publish info on CCW holders, Dealer info should be exposed. What if the personal wealth and habits of newspaper employees were posted in neighborhoods such as where Singleton was killed. Would the newspaper employees "assume" that Johnny Rotten from the 'hood may take notice? If one of the newspaper employees were killed due to a wealth/habit exposure, would someone be asking why, and did the exposure contribute to the death? Most likely.

The guy died defending himself. He was exposed by the Squeeler. Put some no punches pulled pressure on the Squeeler. Quit being so nice, pleasent and being on the defensive. Take the pair of round things off the wall and put them on where they belong.

Any lessons learned or thoughts about the shooting?
If you were in a similiar situation, your life on the line, how would your mindset, gear, and weapon perform?
You carry and/or have a CCW. Is it enough?

Drjones
August 5, 2004, 04:25 PM
My letter to editor clifton:



Mr. Clifton:

I read about your decision to publish the list of Northeast Ohioans who applied for and got a license to carry a concealed weapon.
I also read of the recent murder of Bill Singleton, who is the holder of a Concealed Weapons Permit in your area.

Any reasonable person would look at the situation in the following way:

1) A newspaper and its editor decide to publish a list of private citizens who hold concealed carry permits.

2) Less than a week after said list is published, one of the citizens whose name was published in the list is murdered.

3) Keeping facts numbers one and two in mind, it is reasonable to believe that the newspaper, its staff and especially its editor, should bear some of the blame for this tragedy, if not most of it.

Mr. Clifton: I have but one question for you:

Are you happy now?

Sincerely,

Drjones

El Tejon
August 5, 2004, 04:44 PM
Still waiting on an answer for my police analogy.

What if it were a copper and not a mere serf?

Michigander
August 5, 2004, 05:16 PM
Still waiting on an answer for my police analogy.

What if it were a copper and not a mere serf?

I will venture to say that a list, be it in a newspaper, a phone book or on a wall does not kill people - PEOPLE KILL PEOPLE!

Remember the madman who went after Navin R. Johnson? When you saw that, did you blame the phone book?

Shane333
August 5, 2004, 05:55 PM
El Tejon,

I'd like to reword your question a bit.

What if the newspaper published the name and address of a plainclothes police detective (similar in principal to a citizen with CCW). Then, as the detective is exiting his house, he is ambushed by three men who shoot first and then flee.

Wouldn't the paper be sued? Wouldn't a jury give the victim's family every asset of the newspaper company?

Michigander
August 5, 2004, 06:02 PM
What if the newspaper published the name and address of a plainclothes police detective (similar in principal to a citizen with CCW). Then, as the detective is exiting his house, he is ambushed by three men who shoot first and then flee.

Would his name be in a list of many others or would it be his name alone?

MJRW
August 5, 2004, 06:59 PM
"She told me that Bill had been Robbed a few weeks ago and it was REPORTED IN THE NEWSPAPER!!
So you guys postulate that the guys who robbed Bill a few weeks ago would not be interested in looking at an article about their exploits??"

What are the chances of a guy being robbed twice, any of those robberies being reported as "news," and then robbed again? Surely those odds are astronomical....

goalie
August 5, 2004, 07:33 PM
The morality of what the Plain Dealer did does not depend on the action of others. Whether or not the people who assaulted this man and murdered him got the names from the paper has no effect on the sheer evil that it took to publish those names with the clear intention of causing the people listed hardship in their lives.

sendec
August 5, 2004, 08:50 PM
People have argued in the past that the names and addresses of cops are public record. Uusally they are'nt published, but occasionally they are. Most competent bad guys can find them out without a whole lot of trouble. As for Sheriffs, being elected public officials many of them publicize their addresses and phone numbers.

Getting robbed more than once really is'nt that unusual in some areas. Places sometimes get robbed more than once by the same crew.....

Really, a lot of this is really reaching....."evil" is a pretty strong label to apply to a newspaper publisher, it more likely belongs to the guys who pulled the trigger.

I also have a hard time seeing articulable grounds for a suit. How would suing the paper for publishing the name of the victim differ from someone suing a gun manufacturer whose gun was used in the commission of a crime? There is no causal link, based on the information we have. Newspapers publish obits with funeral service details, but you dont hear about them getting sued when someone breaks into the deceased's home while the funeral is taking place - it happens all the time. They publish all kinds of personal stuff - land assessments, court blotters, foreclosure notices.....

gunsmith
August 5, 2004, 09:14 PM
names and addresses of cops are public record. Uusally they are'nt published, but occasionally they are. Most competent bad guys can find them out without a whole lot of trouble

I would be just as angry if they printed cops names.


....."evil" is a pretty strong label to apply to a newspaper publisher, it more likely belongs to the guys who pulled the trigger.

Publishers who assist in the killing of CCW's or cops are evil.
You can be nice to the evil Doug Clifton if you wish, if he reaps what he has sown I certainly won't be shedding any tears.

Michael Zeleny
August 5, 2004, 10:41 PM
The 'Plain Dealer' and Clifton need to be held responsible for their vile self-serving and malicious behavior that willfully endangers the lives of others. Everyone who carries a firearm, uses a power tool, or drives an automobile, thereby willfully endangers the lives of others. That is why we buy liability insurance. The dangerous consequences of free speech are infinitely more atenuated than ownership and operation of intrinsicaly dangerous hardware. The absurdity of calls for holding a publisher liable for publicizing public records, coming from self-proclaimed takers of the High Road, speaks for itself.

El Tejon
August 5, 2004, 10:52 PM
Michael, have not publishers been held liable (civilly) for acts of free speech before? Why should this newspaper get a pass?

Is it not at least up to a criminal jury to decide whether the act of the editors publishing this hit list constitutes criminal recklessness causing death, assists a criminal or abets manslaughter or murder? As the Plain Dealer would say, "let the people decide."

Michael, what if it were a cop?

AZRickD
August 5, 2004, 10:54 PM
I sent nearly three-dozen e-mails to the Plain Dealer last nite.

No response yet.

Rick

PATH
August 5, 2004, 11:15 PM
I'd have to say the trio cased the place they were going to rob. I agree with Gunsmith's assessment of the scenario.

We cannot be certain if they read Mr. Singleton's name on the CCW list but there is a good chance that they did. (Why didn't they just shoot him last time they robbed him?)

Bad guys read the newspapers! Gunsmith is right on that. In prison a newspaper is a good long read. I would bet the house that the bad guys in this instance read of their own exploits.

If anyone here thinks bad guys would not be interested in knowing who is on a CCW list then think again. Anyone with a fifth grade education can read Mr. Clifton's paper and they sure as heck have heard about the list on the street.

While there is no 100% certainty that they knew he was armed they sure acted like it by shooting him right off.

We will have to see how the investigation plays out. I tend to think they knew he was armed courtesy of Mr. Clifton's list. Like Gunsmith I would be willing to lay a fairly large sum of money on that premise.

Michael Zeleny
August 5, 2004, 11:18 PM
Michael, have not publishers been held liable (civilly) for acts of free speech before? Why should this newspaper get a pass?Likewise, people have been held criminally liable for nothing more than exercising their right to keep and bear arms. What exactly is your point? Are some rights more righteous than others?Michael, what if it were a cop?Official secrets are not matters of public record.

P95Carry
August 5, 2004, 11:19 PM
As the Plain Dealer would say, "let the people decide." Indeed El T .. plus I'd almost choose to use our wonderful (sic) Toby Hoover's words again ... so we can make informed choices. But for a different reason!

Michigander
August 5, 2004, 11:31 PM
It does not surprise me that many here use faulty logic, much like the gun-grabbers. I've seen it before in threads about the war in Iraq, WMD's, etc.

anti-gunner: "It was that evil gun who killed that man! It is the gun's fault."

me: "What about the guy who pulled the trigger?"

anti-gunner: "Well, he probably came from a broken home in the inner city. He's had a rough life. It's societies fault he turned out that way."

OR

some THR'er's: "It was that evil newspaper who killed that man! It's the publisher's fault."

me: "What about the guy who pulled the trigger?"

some THR'er's: "Well he should have been behind bars already for prior crimes. It's the judicial system's fault he's on the streets."

Coronach
August 6, 2004, 01:02 AM
To those of you that claim that no criminal prosecution is merited, would your answer be the same if someone published the name of a police office, his address, and his family members and that police officer was later murdered by a criminal?I'll bite. What section of the ORC would you prosecute him under?

Mike

oneslowgun
August 6, 2004, 01:23 AM
Ok, be it known, that I don't often post here (but read everyday), because I am not as articulate, and a WAY slower typist. Also, most of what I WOULD post usually already has been covered by someone else.

I think we need to look to the core of what we know here.

Irregardless of the facts of the investagation (that we don't know yet), as to the POSSIBILITY that the list contributed to the death, we can be certain of one thing.

A CITIZEN, with a CCW, when attacked by AMBUSH, managed to INCREASE the odds of surviving by 33% . Sadly to no avail, but is that ANY LESS IMPORTANT?

If you were talking to a Lib/Dem/Anti-RKBA, and told them, you could show them a way that would give them a POSSIBLE 33% advantage in ANYTHING, do you think that you wouldn't need hip-waiders to stay "drool" dry?

I personally think that the list MAY have contributed to the death of Mr. Singleton, but just as clearly, I see that WITHOUT his choice to be able to defend himself, he wouldn't have had even that 33% chance.

Maybe for the time being, we should be pointing THAT out.

Just my thoughts OSG

Baba Louie
August 6, 2004, 08:19 AM
In an exchange of gunfire, Singleton and a 17-year-old assailant were shot in the parking lot outside the United Check Cashing store on Lake Shore Boulevard near East 156th Street. Singleton owned or managed a very high-risk business which had cash on hand. Robbed once earlier... I'd opine that the listing of his name as a CCW holder had little to do with the second robbery and shooting, in that the trio more than likely wanted his keys and access to cash.

I doubt they read a list of names and cross-matched his name to the United Check Cashing store manager, rather that they scoped his daily actions out and planned an assault with intent to gain access to the store and $ inside. But whadda I know?

While unfortunate that the Cleveland rag published a list of names of CCW holders, I'll hope and pray that no others listed suffer "Home Invasions" or are accosted with the intent that their weapon/cash is the goal of the crime. If that ever does occur, like Mr. Singleton, I'd hope that the CCW listee's so affected would at least take out one in three of their assailants and the ensuing Civil lawsuit(s) would force a change of ownership to the Cleveland Plain Dealer whereby the new owners might re-evaluate listing of innocent law-abiding citizens who feel the need to exercise their 2nd Amendment rights (albeit a taxed and thus regulated right).

Question for you all... which hand do you use when unlocking your business in the morning? Your strong side/carry hand? Situational awareness in the middle of a planned ambush can be a dicey thing at best.

Mr. Singleton was prepared and got a head shot off after being shot.

My condolences to his family.

gunsmith
August 6, 2004, 06:58 PM
Did you read mine?

The guys who robbed singleton the first time PROBABLY READ THE NEWSPAPER ACCOUNT OF THE ROBBERY

THERE WAS NO REASON FOR THEM TO DO ANY DETECTIVE WORK LIKE CROSS REFERENCE OR THE LIKE! IT'S NOT ROCKET SCIENCE!

they tried to rob him and failed the first time, read the paper and got his name.

a week or so later he is listed as a CCW holder!

they allready had his name from the first time they tried to rob him!!

Then they saw the dang list and they knew he was a CCW holder!


The guys who robbed singleton the first time PROBABLY READ THE NEWSPAPER ACCOUNT OF THE ROBBERY

THERE WAS NO REASON FOR THEM TO DO ANY DETECTIVE WORK LIKE CROSS REFERENCE OR THE LIKE! IT'S NOT ROCKET SCIENCE!

they tried to rob him and failed the first time, read the paper and got his name.

a week or so later he is listed as a CCW holder!

they allready had his name from the first time they tried to rob him!!

Then they saw the dang list and they knew he was a CCW holder!

El Tejon
August 6, 2004, 07:13 PM
Michael, my point is that publishers have been held liable for this type of behavior in the past, the Plain Dealer should be held liable for their involvement with this murder.

So, it's O.K. to publish the private information of a civilian CCW holder but not a police officer because the police info is a state secret?

Coronach, I would prosecute the editors for Criminal Recklessness, Assisting a Criminal, Reckless Homicide and Manslaughter.

Michigander
August 6, 2004, 07:36 PM
assumption 1: killer(s) read newspaper article which listed CHL persons.

assumption 2: killer(s) used the CHL list information to choose their intended victim.

assumption 3: killer(s) were the same person(s) who recently robbed the victim.

assumption 4: person(s) who recently robbed victim read about the robbery in the paper.

assumption 5: killer(s), who we are also assuming to be the recent robber(s), recognized the name of the victim in the CHL list as the name of the victim in the story of the robbery.

All these assumptions may prove to be true. Right now, all it is is speculation.

El Tejon
August 6, 2004, 08:09 PM
Michigander, perhaps, but I have seen criminal prosecutions with less. Let us allow a jury to decide whether the case is mere speculation or criminal recklessness, assisting a criminal, reckless homicide and manslaugther.

This is a war. The people who are against us wish us harm, imprisonment, bodily injury and death as the actions of the Plain Dealer editors or the words of Rosie O'Donnell prove.

No reason why we cannot fight back legally.:) Prosecuting the editors at the Plain Dealer will smash them to bits and provide an example to all others in the media not to act in such an irresponsible manner.

Let's pike some heads (metaphorically).

Michael Zeleny
August 6, 2004, 08:24 PM
Michael, my point is that publishers have been held liable for this type of behavior in the past, the Plain Dealer should be held liable for their involvement with this murder.I remain unconvinced by your theory of liability.So, it's O.K. to publish the private information of a civilian CCW holder but not a police officer because the police info is a state secret?State and private secrets are generally exempted from constitutionally protected speech.

El Tejon
August 6, 2004, 08:58 PM
Michael, exact same theory as was used against Paladin Press and the "Hit Man" book. No reason why Plain Dealer editors should be above the law.

sendec
August 6, 2004, 11:12 PM
People seem to be implying that this guy was targeted because he had a CCW and was armed. That kinda knocks the struts out from under deterence as a reason for carrying, concealed or open. Do you really, honestly think that some tweaked out knuckleheads got a copy of the paper and picked their vic de jour based on the fact that he was armed? Criminals are notoriously illogical, but this bends credulity to the snapping point.

Which is it, I want to deter people by them knowing I am armed or I want to be deselected by them thinking I am not? Break out the tin foil......

Look, bad things happen. The blame for this person's murder lies squarely with the skels who shot him. Trying to make political hay out of this tragedy diserves his memory.

Michael Zeleny
August 7, 2004, 03:47 AM
Michael, exact same theory as was used against Paladin Press and the "Hit Man" book. No reason why Plain Dealer editors should be above the law.I see no parallel here. The 4th Circuit Court in Rice et al v. The Paladin Enterprises (1997), overturned the District Court ruling that the First Amendment barred this lawsuit, holding that speech "aiding and abetting" a crime is not within the purview of the First Amendment. Thereupon the liability insurance carrier of Paladin Press got strong-armed into ponying up a seven figure settlement. The Cleveland Plain Dealer publication is distinguishable from the Hit Man manual in purporting to concern itself with public safety rather than private menace. Generally speaking, I find it absurd that champions of the right to keep and bear arms would seek to infringe upon the right to free speech.

gunsmith
August 7, 2004, 03:57 AM
People seem to be implying that this guy was targeted because he had a CCW and was armed. That kinda knocks the struts out from under deterence as a reason for carrying, concealed or open. Do you really, honestly think that some tweaked out knuckleheads got a copy of the paper and picked their vic de jour based on the fact that he was armed? Criminals are notoriously illogical, but this bends credulity to the snapping point.

If you had watched last weeks Americas Most Wanted.
You would have seen the capture of a cop killer.
Some lowlife skel killed a cop because he was tired of using a shotgun and wanted the cops pistol.

" tweaked out knuckleheads" spend hours and hours planning and scheming.

Some bad guys will kill people with guns,even cops,just to get another gun.

Which is it, I want to deter people by them knowing I am armed or I want to be deselected by them thinking I am not? Break out the tin foil......
imho CCW works best when no one knows who has a gun, I remember a
report I heard of a skel attacking a little old lady in a wheelchair -he told her he was going to kill her because she didn't give him $$ she got her gun out of her purse and shot him.
The element of surprise really helped her out.

I guess that you guys who are so surprised that criminals read papers are from good homes and never spent time with the dregs of society like us NewYorkers were forced to in the 60's and 70's-

good for you,you were raised right and you are willing to give the editor of the plain squealer a break-I admire you guys and wish I hadn't grown up so jaded.

I have to go with what I know about criminals,I know people who have killed clerks during stick ups,I know about 15 people from my old neighborhood in prison for murder.
They would clip out and save every newspaper account of their crimes and if they had seen a list of people who had CCW you can bet your life they would have done everything in their power to find out where/when/who/etc.
I hope the truth comes out, I think Clifton is a skel in every sense of the word.
Criminals are not all stupid, look at Ted Bundy he was going to law school and joined the task force looking for him.
Criminals like the ones are different then good folks,they may do stupid things (especially under the influence).

I thank God that alot of them are stupid and get caught but I accept that not all of them are stupid and not all of them get caught.

MJRW
August 7, 2004, 03:58 AM
gunsmith,

Do you understand the difference between a fact and a theory? It doesn't seem you do. Let me help you out.

Main Entry: fact
Pronunciation: 'fakt
Function: noun
Etymology: Latin factum, from neuter of factus, past participle of facere
1 : a thing done: as a obsolete : FEAT b : CRIME <accessory after the fact> c archaic : ACTION
2 archaic : PERFORMANCE, DOING
3 : the quality of being actual : ACTUALITY <a question of fact hinges on evidence>
4 a : something that has actual existence <space exploration is now a fact> b : an actual occurrence <prove the fact of damage>
5 : a piece of information presented as having objective reality
- in fact : in truth

Main Entry: the·o·ry
Pronunciation: 'thE-&-rE, 'thi(-&)r-E
Function: noun
Inflected Form(s): plural -ries
Etymology: Late Latin theoria, from Greek theOria, from theOrein
1 : the analysis of a set of facts in their relation to one another
2 : abstract thought : SPECULATION
3 : the general or abstract principles of a body of fact, a science, or an art <music theory>
4 a : a belief, policy, or procedure proposed or followed as the basis of action <her method is based on the theory that all children want to learn> b : an ideal or hypothetical set of facts, principles, or circumstances -- often used in the phrase in theory <in theory, we have always advocated freedom for all>
5 : a plausible or scientifically acceptable general principle or body of principles offered to explain phenomena <wave theory of light>
6 a : a hypothesis assumed for the sake of argument or investigation b : an unproved assumption : CONJECTURE c : a body of theorems presenting a concise systematic view of a subject <theory of equations>
synonym see HYPOTHESIS

What you have there is a "theory." It seems some of us don't buy into the theory unless it becomes "fact." You might want to just accept this.

gunsmith
August 7, 2004, 04:07 AM
I don't know for sure-have I said that I know for sure?

I also "knew" the day Susan Smith claimed some black guy stole her babies she was lying.

The week before 9/11/01 I was trying to convince my friends the Taliban
were going to attack us.

I freely admit I can not prove my assumption,but please don't hate me when I am proven correct...ok?

ps,my friends who I had told about the Taliban were real mad at me...they didn't even know what or where they were....

My liberal friends tell me John Kerry isn't anti gun-they have lots of "facts" too.

JOE MACK
August 7, 2004, 05:18 AM
Whomsoever thinks that the list and the murder aren't related are working on assumption also as they don't have all the facts. They are also working on a theory. If the list is so innocent to some people, list your full name, state of residence, county, and the fact that you have a CCW. DIDN'T THINK SO!

telewinz
August 7, 2004, 07:22 AM
http://www.cleveland.com/indepth/concealed/index.ssf?/indepth/concealed/more/1091111405129300.html

mussi
August 7, 2004, 07:30 AM
wouldn't it be ultimately disturbing for local liberals to see it turn into a pro-freedom and pro-RKBA newspaper?

El Tejon
August 7, 2004, 08:48 AM
Michael, you don't see the same theory. Well, you're off the jury then.:D

Speech which aids and abets a crime does not fall within the protection of the First Amendment. Thus, no reason why the Plain Dealer should be protected, civilly or criminally. These editors cannot be allowed to hide behind the First Amendment for their actions.

sendec, I respectfully disagree. The editors wish us harm. Why should we not fight back?

El Rojo
August 7, 2004, 01:50 PM
AH close it. I guess we can't expect people to rationally wait for the facts to come out but must jump to conclusions and throw about speculation and go off the deep end. What does any of this matter until the truth comes out? A guy got shot in a robbery, his name was in a newspaper. If you don't like it, write your ohioian legislators and try and get the legislation changed to specify that this data can still be made available to watch dog groups, but not in its entirity to media groups. Or make it a crime for media groups to print it. Or make it completely private and not for public viewing.

Sitting around here arguing about facts and what are facts and what I said and what I didn't say is a complete waste of time and this baby has run its course. Again that is my opinion and not the fact in this case! But if you don't believe my theory then I have some ocean front property to sell you in Taft. :barf:

dadman
August 7, 2004, 02:14 PM
So, is it safe to ASSUME from the more enlightened responses that:
1. Ohioans For Concealed Carry should retract the article/posting and issue another which sticks strictly to the shooting event only.
2. One shouldn't ever act on or with a hunch, assumption, experience, faith or instinct.
3. We should always play fair with and be polite to the anti's with power.

I shall write to OFCC and demand that they retract the article and issue an apology for stooping to such lowly action.
They, and I, made the nice gunowners and carriers look bad.

What are we going to do if stuff gets really bad?

Feanaro
August 7, 2004, 03:49 PM
For once, I agree with WildAlaska. That can't be good. :uhoh: This is really and truely embarassing. We accuse liberals/antigunners of being knee-jerk emotional types and most of this thread is full of the very same thing. The finger pointing and angry spamming of e-mails only makes us look bad.

So, is it safe to ASSUME from the more enlightened responses that:
1. Ohioans For Concealed Carry should retract the article/posting and issue another which sticks strictly to the shooting event only.


Did anyone in this thread say that? If so, I didn't see it. Straw man.

2. One shouldn't ever act on or with a hunch, assumption, experience, faith or instinct.

Another straw Man. No one, unless I missed something, has stated such. Evidence is required before one can make a conclusion about anything. What we have is speculation. We know that Singleton was killed, the manner in which he was killed, that his named was published after being robbed, and after getting a CC permit. The rest is conjecture. It is logical to think that the criminals could have read the paper, connected the dots and so on. The fact that they shot first adds some weight to that. To believe it with very little supporting evidence is not.

iapetus
August 7, 2004, 06:31 PM
If I was an intelligent but amoral criminal, carrying out a robbery, and knew that one of my intended victims was armed, I'd shoot him first.

But if I was planning a robbery, I would most likely decide to avoid a target that I knew in advance was armed. Why make life unnecessarily dangerous for myself by attacking a known CCW holder?

In fact, would not publishing a list of CCWers make life more dangerous for those who are not on the list?

(Of course, that doesn't mean that these robbers were were as smart as I am, or that there wasn't some other motive for choosing a target they knew was armed).

El Tejon
August 7, 2004, 06:51 PM
Conjecture? No, I argue res ipsa!:D

dadman
August 7, 2004, 08:48 PM
Did anyone in this thread say that? If so, I didn't see it. Straw man.
No, no, and no. Nobody directly said so, which is my point. And why I emphasised "assume". My interpretation of the wording and implications from previous posts.
Heads up, Feanaro: 'We' and 'us' already look bad to 'Them', and will continue to do so.

IMO, this topic has developed into a debate about the way in which Ohioans For Concealed Carry reported the shooting and whether the Cleveland Plain Dealer's list should be coupled with reports of the shooting.

1. Topic starts out with a link about the shooting. Same link poses some questions at it's end.
The OFCC article, for whatever reason(s), influences some to contact Mr. Clifton and his paper, the Cleveland Plain Dealer.
Others in this topic take issue with the way the Ohioans For Concealed Carry author worded the article, the Dealer's list being "wrongly" coupled to the shooting, and OFCC and others making "us" look bad.

Therefore, with the talk of gunners now looking bad, shouldn't OFCC be resposible and retract, apologize, and cease from such reporting and questioning in the future?

2. Is there ever a point that is reached where it's time to roll up the sleeves and fight back?
Or should we constantly be concerned with being nice, civil, and on the defensive?
Are you going to win over the likes of Clifton/Plain Dealer with reason and logic?
Do they need an occasional slap of reality?

I could see some of you in a fight with a bigger oponnent: "Shouldn't kick Bruno in the nuts while I'm being thrashed. Wouldn't be fair to the lad."

3. Another assumption of mine:
OFCC, whether by purpose or unintentionly, caused the Dealer to maybe think twice.
They, OFCC, also influenced others to take some action against the Dealer.
May want to think about that down the road if things get bad.
Or, maybe OFCC is just guilty of shoddy reporting.

There's a war of ideas and a conflict of views currently going on in America. You going to spend your time nitpicking groups like OFCC and worrying about your good image, or defend the likes of the Dealer?

Michael Zeleny
August 7, 2004, 09:09 PM
Speech which aids and abets a crime does not fall within the protection of the First Amendment. Read the case. "Paladin has stipulated to a set of facts which establish as a matter of law that the publisher is civilly liable for aiding and abetting James Perry in his triple murder, unless the First Amendment absolutely bars the imposition of liability upon a publisher for assisting in the commission of criminal acts. As the parties stipulate: 'The parties agree that the sole issue to be decided by the Court... is whether the First Amendment is a complete defense, as a matter of law, to the civil action set forth in the plaintiffs' Complaint.'" There is no reason for The Cleveland Plain Dealer to stipulate in the instant matter to anything remotely approximating civil liability for aiding and abetting murder.

madcowburger
August 12, 2004, 04:03 PM
Has there been any follow-up on this?

Has the Cleveland Plain Squealer addressed the issue at all? Have Clifton, or any of his henchpersons responded in any way to accusations that they essentially fingered Singleton for a hit?

MCB

Dorian
August 12, 2004, 06:55 PM
BG1: Hey man, let's go rob this store.

BG2: Yeah sounds good! He's got some good shizz in there!

BG1: Oh man check this out! There's a list of people in this paper with the names of store owners who own guns around here.... What's that old guys name? Oh yeah! Here it is!

BG2: I guess we'll just have to shoot first and rob his ass after!

:barf:

Michigander
August 12, 2004, 09:47 PM
I clicked the link, http://www.cleveland.com/indepth/concealed/index.ssf?/base/news/109110421682620.xml, picked a name at random, searched the name on MSN White Pages, and there he was!

I would be so *%$#@&**^#$ steamed if my name was on this list!

This is scary stuff!

sendec
August 12, 2004, 10:53 PM
If people are being "targeted for a hit" because they are armed we should probably give up the deterence argument and start dumping guns. Clearly they are not worth the risk

Steamed because your name is in the phone book?

:rolleyes:

Justin
August 12, 2004, 11:36 PM
sendec-

It's my understanding that the argument works thusly:

When people are allowed to carry concealed, crime goes down because a criminal does not know which potential victim is armed. S/he only knows that there is now a higher chance of picking out a victim who has the means to effectively fight back. In essence, concealed carry works best when those who carry are, for all intents and purposes, anonymous.

Outing all of the concealed carry permit holders goes against the grain of this argument. Instead of a generally higher chance that a perp will encounter an armed victim s/he now has the ability to know who is likely to be armed and who is not. Hence the crime could then be tailored to the situation. As a result, our theoretical perp could decide to pick an unarmed victim as an easy mark, or if they felt that they needed to acquire a firearm, they could pick someone from the list of armed citizens, and plan their crime accordingly.

Now, of course, I am assuming a certain level of intelligence in our hypothetical criminal, but it's certainly not outside the realm of possibility. Besides, no one is in condition yellow 24/7/365. We're all human, fallible, and capable of being taken by surprise at one time or another.

Steamed because your name is in the phone book? Being listed in the phone book isn't troubling. Being listed in such a way that it is easy to cross check your status as a gunowner with your home address is. Once again, the relative anonymity of being just another John Smith has been replaced with a listing of John Smith who, unlike his neighbors, has a collection of pistols.

On top of it all, I have yet to see anyone articulate why one person's right to free speech trumps another's right to privacy.

Michigander
August 12, 2004, 11:47 PM
Steamed because your name is in the phone book?

No. I said I'd be steamed if my name was on the LIST.

The list which allowed me to find a person who had a CHL from which I could cross-reference with the phone book in order to locate where that person lives.

P95Carry
August 13, 2004, 12:18 AM
Justin - you pinned that down pretty nicely.:)

gunsmith
August 13, 2004, 12:53 AM
Steamed because your name is in the phone book?

It's not, it's unlisted:D

CCW works only when no one knows who's armed.

If bad guys know they may target you.
A cop was killed because a bank robber wanted the cops pistol his capture was profiled on AMW a week or so ago.

Hal
August 13, 2004, 05:46 AM
madcowburger

Has there been any follow-up on this?

Has the Cleveland Plain Squealer addressed the issue at all?
Yes.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Taken from the Cleveland Plain Dealer's webpage:

http://www.cleveland.com/search/index.ssf?/base/opinion/1092130307262051.xml?ocmor

Search term "singleton"


Steve is a gun enthusiast, and he watched closely as the concealed-carry debate dominated the Ohio General Assembly for years.

Finally, this past session, a law was passed giving Ohioans the right to carry concealed handguns in public.







The law, a long-overdue correction of Ohio's ambiguous and poorly constructed "affirmative defense," which made a criminal out of anyone who carried a handgun - regardless of the reason - was cheered by Steve and thousands of other Ohioans who believe that the state and federal constitutions mean what they say about the right to bear arms.

It was a victory for the good guys - guys like Bill Singleton, 59, a Cleveland merchant who was shot and killed Tuesday morning outside of his Collinwood check-cashing store, but not before he performed a public service by killing one of his assailants. That assailant was Rhyan Ikner, 17, a violent and habitual delinquent who was arrested in March on aggravated robbery charges.

And it was a victory for law-abiding people who felt the need to carry a gun and wanted the right to defend their lives with deadly force, if needed.

But Steve, an engineer, hasn't raced out to apply for a permit to carry one of his weapons. In fact, he's bitter about the way the CCW ordeal has played out. He has decided that the law is not worth the paper it's printed on.

He has decided he would rather remain unarmed than to subject himself to having his name printed as a permit holder in Ohio's largest daily newspaper.

Steve is mad at The Plain Dealer. I feel his angst. A private man with a strong libertarian bent, Steve, a skilled martial artist who can easily defend himself without a weapon, believes the point of the permit is to give the law-abiding citizens the same edge that the armed criminal currently possesses - the element of surprise.

Violent thugs who tote guns, like the deceased Ikner and thousands of others like him, are hardly concerned with seeking permits and then being identified as people who carry weapons in public. They carry guns secretly because that gives them the edge on the street and allows them to bully, rob or kill with greater efficiency.

Why should the law-abiding be denied the same edge, Steve asked me last week. Why should they be singled out? Why should criminals, especially gun thieves, be given a cheat sheet on where to go "shopping" for weapons? Why should battered wives or stalked women be identified as having taken steps to defend themselves?

I don't have convincing counters to those questions. Perhaps it's because I agree with him. But his anger, with its focus on The Plain Dealer and the other large newspapers around the state that have recently published the names of people who have received CCW permits, is misplaced.

Instead of blaming the newspapers, Steve's anger should be directed at the legislators who passed the law that made the permit process secret to everyone but the news media, and at Gov. Bob Taft, who signed it.

By doing so, the governor and the legislature insulted the 99.999 percent of Ohioans who don't have press credentials.

The irony, of course, is the names probably would not have been published if lawmakers had not gone out of their way to shield the identities of those who received permits. The state issues hundreds of permits and licenses. But with the notable exception of freshly minted lawyers, when was the last time you saw newspapers run the names of those who were licensed for anything?

By trying to keep secret the identities of Ohioans who received permits, the state needlessly passed a terribly flawed measure and ensured that the Fourth Estate would do its job and perform the public service expected of a constitutionally protected free press.

The legislature should revisit the CCW law and remove any open record restrictions on permit holders. That way, newspapers probably would stop publishing the names of permit holders, people like Steve would no longer be singled out any more than a person who decides to buy a fishing license, and gun thieves would no longer be able to buy a newspaper to find out who is packing heat.

But most importantly, the legislature should fix this flawed law to make a public record exactly what it should be - available to all the public, not just a small part of it.

Morris is an associate editor of The Plain Dealer's editorial pages.

Contact him at:

pfmorris -at- plaind.com 216-999-4070


Nice spin eh?:barf:

(PS - Toby Hoover isn't a "he" shes' a "she" - well,,, female in the kind of way Janet Reno is...)

'nuther thing I reaaaallly wonder is if Singleton had one of those stupid "No Firearms" signs posted at his check cashing business?

tyme
August 13, 2004, 08:33 AM
Please, if you post people's email addresses, obfuscate them so they aren't harvested by spambots. (Regardless of whether the email address is harvestable from the Plain Dealer site, THR doesn't need to contribute.)

Phillip,

The beginning of your [August 10th] article is confused at best; you agree that citizens who carry firearms should have the advantage of surpise, but your solution is to make the list available not just to the media but to everyone? You somehow think that such a list will not eventually fall into the hands of criminals who will use it to steal guns unless the media publishes it? (Which, I might note, you already have; thus your argument is not only disingenuous but hypocritical and malicious as well.)

Since the Plain Dealer has effectively made the list (or at least a snapshot as of mid-summer 2004) available to the general public, why would getting the Legislature to make the list public have any effect, and how would it avoid the serious ethical problems with the publication of said list?

The simple fact is that your paper may be an accessory to murder; even if Mr. Singleton was not targeted or shot so quickly for being on the list, it seems odd to me for the Plain Dealer to bet that no criminal will ever use that list to select a victim; if that does happen, your paper _will_ be an accessory to murder as far as I'm concerned.

The proper response of the "Fourth Estate," if it truly believes that granting the press access to the list of ccw license holders is bad public policy, would be to make that point without making the list public. Perhaps it's a sad commentary on the skill of the press these days that they can't write an article or editorial explaining what they see as the problem without publishing the ccw holder list in a pompous display of just how irresponsible they are.

As your August 10th article correctly notes, criminals don't care about laws or concealed carry permits because they can't carry legally regardless of whether there's a licensing scheme. Why are you so afraid of non-criminals carrying guns? Do you honestly believe that law-abiding citizens who carry concealed are more of a menace than a benefit?

The state has no business printing up permits to carry firearms, because the state has no reason under its police power to institute such a permitting process. Vermont and Alaska both allow unlicensed concealed carry. No blood is running in the streets of Anchorage, which is no surprise as everyone seems to agree that criminals do not and have never cared about obeying the law.

No criminals convicted of serious crimes are able to get away with carrying concealed weapons in the absence of concealed carry licensing. In the thirty-something states that grant ccw permits, police check those permits during traffic and Terry stops, when they also run criminal background checks. If a suspect has committed a serious crime in the past, the suspect is not allowed to carry a firearm. Otherwise, the suspect is treated as if he or she had applied for and received a permit. The permitting process is merely a revenue stream for states, because as demonstrated above the permit is redundant.

Your finger-pointing at concealed carry permit holders is abusive, unethical, and potentially criminal. Your insistence that there be a public listing of permit holders positively reeks of some insidious political agenda; would you condone a public listing of people with high-value insurance policy riders, or a list of people known to have bought diamonds? The state has no business knowing who carries a firearm to begin with. They should not have a list; neither should you, and neither should the public.

Permits or no, there is no downside to allowing law-abiding citizens to carry weapons without their ccw status being made public, and there is no need for the state to keep track of who wants to carry a firearm; any law-abiding citizen should be allowed to do so. If you were honest with yourself, I think you would begin to see that.

Fastlane
August 13, 2004, 08:56 AM
tyme:

Very well said. Thank you...

Double Naught Spy
August 16, 2004, 07:44 AM
thefitzvh said...

"Initial accounts say the robbers shot first, ambush-style. Did they know Singleton was armed? Did Bill Singleton die upon Doug Clifton's altar of open records?"

On the notion that Singleton's attackers shot first because they read his name on the CCW list in the newspaper, that is completely unfounded here. As I noted previously, many robbers do shoot first and make demands and Singleton had been involved in previous robberies at the same location and had done battle there BEFORE his name was ever published.

Here is a classic example very similar to Singleton's where the robbers noted it was a robbery and started shooting before the intended victims could react. And NO, their names were not published in a newspaper. This sort of thing really does happen.

http://www.thewbalchannel.com/news/3636848/detail.html

TDPerk, just because bad guys shoot first does not mean they made demands of a corpse. Singleton survived until after the incident and was asking for help. In this case, they made demands and shot Singleton before he could react to demands.

Shooting first is a power play to establish dominance. Even if unshot, many victims willl be paralyzed with fear or convinced immediately that the bad guys are willing to shoot and have demonstrated their weapons are very real. Pistol shots frequently do not result in immediate death or in unconsciousness.

gunsmith
March 11, 2007, 07:22 PM
this really angers me

skinnyguy
March 11, 2007, 07:52 PM
I'm not sure of the details of the case, as I was not living here at the time, but the local newspaper here in town at one published arrests of persons and the charges against them. The paper had to stop the publishing of those names because somebody took offense that their privacy was being invaded.

This case has similarities, while my newspaper's posting caused embarassment, the invasion of privacy of the Ohio newspaper had fatal results for one of the persons involved, and possibly more problems later on down the road.

I hope the publishers of that newspaper are unable to sleep at night for the damage they have caused, because there are many Ohio residents who will not be able to sleep for the fear that they have become targets.

Ridgeway
March 11, 2007, 08:05 PM
thefitzvh said...

"Initial accounts say the robbers shot first, ambush-style. Did they know Singleton was armed? Did Bill Singleton die upon Doug Clifton's altar of open records?"

On the notion that Singleton's attackers shot first because they read his name on the CCW list in the newspaper, that is completely unfounded here. As I noted previously, many robbers do shoot first and make demands and Singleton had been involved in previous robberies at the same location and had done battle there BEFORE his name was ever published.
Indeed it is a fallacy to assume that he was immediatly shot b/c xyz robber read his name in the paper.

Nevertheless Newspapers that do such shameful actions are deserving of nothing less than boycotts.

If you enjoyed reading about "CCW holder ambushed and killed after news publishes his name" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!