CCW holder ambushed and killed after news publishes his name

Status
Not open for further replies.
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:
 
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.
 
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.
 
Sendec

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.
 
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?
 
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.
 
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.
 
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.
 
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.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top