anti gun IL politico mugged

[gunsmith]

http://www.saukvalley.com/articles/2007/04/29/news/state/134203775678423.txt


I'm not sure how bad or effective she was as a politician, I do remember she voted for a ban on all semi's

Published on: Sunday, April 29, 2007
Carol Moseley Braun suffered broken wrist in Friday mugging



CHICAGO (AP) - Former U.S. senator and presidential candidate Carol Moseley Braun suffered a broken wrist late Friday when a mugger tried to steal her purse as she tried to enter her home near the University of Chicago, authorities said Saturday.

Braun, who made a run for the presidency in 2004, had exited a car and was standing at her front door when the assailant came out of the bushes and tried to take her purse, according to her spokesman Kevin Lampe. When Braun resisted, the man produced a knife and cut the strap of the purse.

As Braun resisted the assailant, a University of Chicago student came to her aid, Lampe said.

"He is the hero of the day," he said.

During the course of the struggle, Braun stumbled, fracturing her left wrist as she tried to break her fall.

The assailant eventually fled the scene without the purse, Lampe said.

Braun was taken to Northwestern Memorial Hospital where she was treated and released.

"She is resting at home," Lampe said Saturday afternoon.

Zachary Trayes-Gibson of Massachusetts, who was walking nearby with a friend, said he didn't know who was being attacked when he heard screams.

"I turned to look and saw a woman on the ground and a man on top of her assaulting her," he said. "It looked like he was throwing punches. I turned and ran toward them, and my friend yelled out 'Hey!' and he (the assailant) looked up."

After the attacker ran off, Trayes-Gibson was surprised to learn who he was helping.

"I know about her because she was the first black female to be a senator," he said. "I knew she had run for president. I remember seeing her during the primary debates."

Chicago Police spokeswoman JoAnn Taylor said Braun's attacker had not yet been arrested.

Braun, a Democrat, became the first black woman elected to the U.S. Senate in 1992, serving one term. She lost her re-election bid to Peter Fitzgerald in 1998. After her defeat, President Clinton appointed her ambassador to New Zealand and Samoa.

Braun has recently been promoting a line of organic spices, teas and produce named Ambassador Organics - an apparent nod to her work as a diplomat. In launching the business, Braun has said she wants to encourage Americans to eat healthier.

 

[Waywatcher]

I highly doubt she can connect the dots...

 

[mmissile]

It's the "T"

 

[Rev. DeadCorpse]

Part of me thinks this shows that maybe the whole "karmic debt" thing isn't all hookum. Part of me wonders how long it'll be before Carol wants more "fist control".

Ms. Braun, please learn a lesson from this. Disarming everyone only makes this type of attack that much easier for those who will commit violence no matter what the laws are.

 

[ZeSpectre]

I highly doubt she can connect the dots...

+1

Also a little tactical review. This is a prime example of why "off body" carry is not a good idea. If she had been armed, and the gun had been in her purse, it would have been inaccessable in this scenario.

 

[Lonestar49]

Totally Agree, unfortunately

Quote: I highly doubt she can connect the dots...
--------------
...

In a NUTSHELL..



LS

 

[DonP]

The details in another story on this said that the male student chased the guy down the street a couple of blocks and the guy turned and pulled a knife on him.

Then the student backed away, while the mugger got in a car and drove away. But this is in far left, liberal Hyde Park where the mugger is probably just another disadvantaged youth in need of help and community support.

I'm sure Braun will start a college fund for the robber and lecture the two students about interfering with his rights as a citizen to avoid harrassment.

She was ajoke as a politician, but she cohose to run in the "Year of the Woman" and the newspapers carried her watre, overlooked several serious scandals that would have sunk any Republican because she was an African American Woman running to be the first black, female Swenator from Illinois.

Does any of this sound familiar to the news today or on the Tribunes "6th article in a series" on how special Barack Obama and his wife are?

 

[mountainclmbr]

I also doubt she could connect the dots. Not even if the dots were numbered, a dotted line was printed to the dots and if a pink crayon were provided.

 

[Slinger]

The mugger had a knife!

Yikes! Looks like we might need some new "knife controll legislation" from Springfield.

 

[RPCVYemen]

Actually, the incident looks pretty ambiguous as a case for/against CCW.

We know two things:

1. The perp wanted to steal her purse.
2. The perp, though he had a knife, was not intending to take her life.

We know the second because he ran off without the purse:

The assailant eventually fled the scene without the purse, Lampe said.

The perp only intended to take her pruse, and was not willing to kill/seriously hurt her to get the purse. [ Obvioulsy, she could not have known that in advance, but because she didn't shoot him, we do know that. ]

In general, it would be illegal and or unethical to shoot someone who is simply stealing a purse.

Mike

 

[ZeSpectre]

In general, it would be illegal and or unethical to shoot someone who is simply stealing a purse.

Mike

I disagree simply because the perp was brandishing a weapon which instantly makes it a creditable threat to personal safety. The perp had means, motive, opportunity, and presented a valid threat. A lethal response from a CCW would therefore be valid.

As to #2

The perp, though he had a knife, was not intending to take her life.

He may or may-not have intended to use the knife but his intent doesn't really matter, what matters is his action i.e. threatening with a weapon.

 

[romma]

Glad she wasn't hurt. Only when some people taste defenslessness will they wake up. Maybe that is. We'll see!

 

[glennser]

I've seen a couple of these threads recently and I don't think it's very "High Road" to revel in someone else's misfortune, remember everyone is entitled to believe what they want and no-one deserves to get attacked on the streets, the "Maybe now they'll see our point of view" doesn't do us any favours and simply makes us look bad, I know for one it turns me off.
I also have to agree with the above poster too that I really don't see how her having a gun would have helped at all in this situation, I suppose she could have given him the bag and blazed away as he ran off but is that really much better than the actual outcome?

Glennser

 

[romma]

"Maybe now they'll see our point of view" doesn't do us any favours and simply makes us look bad, I know for one it turns me off.

I will re-emphasize my opinion... Maybe she and others like her, particularly "lawmakers", will wake up. What is wrong with someone getting a dose of reality? Especially if they are not harmed too badly? Let's face it, her situation could have been worse. I have been robbed at gun point personally, and I wish I had a firearm with me at the time. And I never owned one before my personal experience.

 

[obxned]

She probably isn't near smart enuf!

 

[RPCVYemen]

I disagree simply because the perp was brandishing a weapon which instantly makes it a creditable threat to personal safety. The perp had means, motive, opportunity, and presented a valid threat.

I distinguish between legality and ethics. (I don't allow lawyers or politicians of any ilk to define my ethics. I hope you don't either.)

It seems to me unethical to use deadly force against anyone who isn't intending to kill me (or someone else) or inflict serious bodily injury (on me or someone else).

The legal question, which involves motive, means, and opporunity is a objective way to approximate the ethics. But the legal question in no way obviate the ethical questions. It is clear to me that Rep. Braun would have had the legal right to shoot someone who brandished a knife in the course of the robbery.

We can't know for sure whether or not someone has the intention to kill us. But perfectly it is perfectly reasoanable to assume that a person who uses a weapon in that manner is prepared to kill or inflict serious bodily injury.

The legal standard makes sense.

A lethal response from a CCW would therefore be valid.

If by valid, you mean "legal", then I couldn't agree more.

But now we know that the assumption was incorrect, because the perp chose to run away, leaving the purse rather than kill or do serious harm to Rep. Braun.

The legal situation is not changed one iota by his flight, but I contend that the ethical situation is now ambiguous.

He may or may-not have intended to use the knife but his intent doesn't really matter, what matters is his action i.e. threatening with a weapon.

I think it's a little stronger than "may or may not have intended" - [what matters is his action, and he ran away without harming her. That's pretty strong evidence that he didn't intend to use weapon on her.

My main point in posting was this situation will not convince folks who are against CCW.

Anti CCW: "If she had a gun and shot him, she would have killed someone who was just stealing her purse."

Pro CCW: "But he might have been willing to kill her!"

Anti-CCW: "We know that he didn't intend to kill her because he didn't kill her. That's a fact. What does 'might' have to do with it?"​

I don't think of "might" cases as very strong arguments.

Mike

 

[Jim K]

There is also the anti argument that we need to ban guns because "I can defend myself against a knife, but I can't defend myself against a gun."

The last time I heard that on TV it was from some guy who had to be at least 85 and looked like he would be in trouble against a two-year old. I doubt he ever saw a real knife fighter in his life, but I guarantee he could NOT defend himself against a knife or anything else.

Jim

 

[RPCVYemen]

I've seen a couple of these threads recently and I don't think it's very "High Road" to revel in someone else's misfortune, remember everyone is entitled to believe what they want and no-one deserves to get attacked on the streets,

Hear, hear!

I am sorry that anyone is ever a victim of a violent crime - whether they agree with me or not.

I don't evey recall hearing Senatior Braun evey say anything that I agreed with. In fact, I disagreed with darn near everything I ever heard her say.

But the reality is that a 60 year old woman benig attacked when she was entering her home does not fill me with glee. She's at an age where bones heal slowly, and the broken wrist will bring her months of pain. My heart goes out to her at it does to any innocent victim of violent crime.

Mike

 

[RPCVYemen]

She probably isn't near smart enuf!

I bet she can spell "enough".

 

[TallPine]

It seems to me unethical to use deadly force against anyone who isn't intending to kill me

So just how is it ethical for the govt to use deady force against someone who refuses to pay taxes...?

Zachary Trayes-Gibson of Massachusetts, who was walking nearby with a friend, said he didn't know who was being attacked when he heard screams.

"I turned to look and saw a woman on the ground and a man on top of her assaulting her," he said. "It looked like he was throwing punches. I turned and ran toward them, and my friend yelled out 'Hey!' and he (the assailant) looked up."

After the attacker ran off, Trayes-Gibson was surprised to learn who he was helping.

I don't think we have any reason to believe that the perpetrator did not intend to harm the victim - the only reason he ran off was because the two fine young men intevened.

 

[RPCVYemen]

So just how is it ethical for the govt to use deady force against someone who refuses to pay taxes...?

Huh? Did someone change channels while I wasn't watching?

I don't think we have any reason to believe that the perpetrator did not intend to harm the victim - the only reason he ran off was because the two fine young men intevened.

I think the perp was pretty intent on doing Senator Braun the economic harm of depriving her of her purse. I have no doubt of that.

I think there is some reason to believe that he was not intent on killing her or doing serious bodily harm with the knife. The evidence: his actions.

If in fact, the perp was beating her, one could argue that he did intend to kill her or cause serious bodily harm. Where was the knife while he was beating her?

Mike

 

[.cheese.]

When somebody pulls a knife out in the midst of attacking another, regardless of what their actual intentions are with that knife, the attack has just gone from assault, to aggravated assault - a forcible felony.

Depending upon where you live, deadly force may be legally justified or not. If nothing else, in her position, she would not have been crazy to have thought he was intent on physically harming her severely.

I can see a number of ways that deadly force would be legally justified in this scenario in many places.

Whether or not it's ethical, that's a debate of its own.

 

[gunsmith]

She created her own reality

To use jargon familiar with folks who use organic products.
Why didn't she talk to him? Why didn't she just give him what he wanted? (that is what people like her always tell us to do)

I suppose she could have given him the bag and blazed away as he ran off but is that really much better than the actual outcome?

No, young liberal, most CCW'ers wouldn't shoot when the threat is no longer present.
When he produces a knife he is clearly a threat and it is reasonable to shoot.

I do not "revel" in her misfortune. I will however point out that was one of those types who may have just come to the realization that the police can not protect you.

As far as to whether or not the cowardly skell would have stabbed her, he was chased off before he could, I believe he would have.

"a conservative is a liberal who has just been mugged, a liberal is a conservative who has just been arrested"

 

[RPCVYemen]

No, young liberal, most CCW'ers wouldn't shoot when the threat is no longer present.
When he produces a knife he is clearly a threat and it is reasonable to shoot.

This is part of why I am not sure that having a handgun in this case would have been useful. The way I read the story:

1. Senator Braun is unlocking her door.
2. Young perp rushes her from behind a bush (presumably pretty close and fast).
3. Perp pulls knife to cut purse.

Maybe this is a tactical question. If she didn't see the perp's knife before he attacked, and then she's on the ground, with him cutting away at her purse,. is a handgun going to help her? [That's intended to be question, not a debating point.] Is she likely to be able to draw and shoot with him sitting on top of her?

If not, and he takes the purse and runs, she can't shoot him once he had ceased the attack, so she can't shoot him after he runs away.

It's not clear to me how a handgun helps in "rush" type of mugging. It looks to me like you need to be clear about threat, motive, means and opportunity while the perp far enough away for you to draw the weapon. How does this work with that kind of mugging?

Thanks,

Mike

 

[ZeSpectre]

I'm not saying that a CCW would or would not have helped in this situation, my earlier comment was just to point out that off body carry sucks and would have resulted in not having access to a CCW in this case. (sort of a "side note")