Idiot kid with .22 shot dead by CCW holder

[Byron Quick]

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

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

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

 

[cdma]

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

[jobu07]

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

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

 

[Too Many Choices!?]

Even the media gets it right sometimes..

And the truth has a distinct odor, just like BS has it's own unique aroma !

 

[JohnBT]

"How long does it take to circle a car on a bike ?"

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

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

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

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

No updates yet that I've seen.

John

 

[TC66]

I have been sitting here reading these posts and I see a lot of people saying just drive away. That does not work! Here are two cases where the victim was shot.

"It's an innocent motorist who was robbed," Huber said. "The owner of the car, Mr. Gordon, tried to drive away and was shot for it." TONY GORDON DIED TRYING TO FOLLOW OSHP CAPT. JOHN BORN'S ADVICE

Dayton: Man critically hurt in foiled carjacking

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

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

 

[GRB]

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

One thing that makes me want to puke is the way in which the alleged criminal has suddenly become the alleged crime victim! The kid who attempted to rob the guy in the car was not the "crime victim" if all in the article is correct. if all is correct then the guy in the car was THE ONLY CRIME VICTIM and Victims' Services should be catering to his emotional and psychological needs, not to those of the alleged criminal's family. That is about as liberal a twist of who was the crime victim as can be imagined. If any of you don't think so then read the below again:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

[Bobo]

The kid was the law breaker. Fourteen years old and carrying a gun is illegal in VA.

 

[NineseveN]

Drive away? Are you insane (directed at no one in particular)?!?

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

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

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

 

[SLCDave]

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

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

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

 

[Double Maduro]

NineseveN & others,

What we know,

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

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

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

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

5. The gg said the bg

"threatened him with a gun and attempted to rob him,"

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

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

What we don't know.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Some questions on some of the points.

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

Can you?

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

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

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

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

Could you?

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

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

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

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

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

My real point is;

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

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

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

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

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


Thank you for your time,
DM

 

[Bubbles]

We do know some other facts.

- This incident occurred almost two weeks ago.

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

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

 

[Igloodude]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

[Waitone]

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

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

 

[[email protected]]

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

DanO

 

[NineseveN]

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

Which takes less than a second.

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

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

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

If I saw a guy running around my neighborhood, the FAL would promptly be in hand. Where I come from, criminals and people that are intent on hurting innocent people have no rights until they are apprehended by law enforcement, because I don’t live in the courts, I live where real people become victims of punks like this every single day. When they are at large, they are fair game if it comes down to me or some poor schmuck that’s walking his dog at night and the scumbag, the scumbag loses. I’ll let the law decide afterwards, I’ll have a clear conscience.

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

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

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

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

Tons of reasons are possible. I don’t find them relevant. Perhaps others do, that’s their thing, cool. With the information I have, I am comfortable offering the guy a pat on the back. New information could quite possibly change that.

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

In what manner? In the manner of holding a firearm. Manner enough for me to warrant the end of the bg’s life. I don’t care if the kid said please and sir, with a rifle in hand, it puts all the context anyone will ever need on the conversation. Is there a polite way to point a gun at someone or brandish one in front of them?

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

Can you?

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

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

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

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

Not sure what you’re getting at, I don’t find it relevant.

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

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

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

Could you?

How do we know when he noticed the gun? Perhaps he did not notice it until after they were off the bikes? We don’t know, but regardless, if you cannot hit a target at 50 yards that is moving in a semi-straight line away from you, not much I can say. I can hit a car-sized target every time at 50 yards with my handgun (don't know about a driver sized target, but I'll hit the car). Give me a rifle and I’ll beep the friggen horn for you. Any semi-competent shot can do the same, give or take a few inches. It is not a viable option to try and outrun bullets, especially fired from a rifle, from a dead stop, in straight line in an unarmored vehicle. 150 feet in 2 seconds? A common rifle bullet can easily travel over 2500 feet per second from the muzzle. Even the lowly .22 would be at over 1100 feet per second at 50 yards. In 2 seconds, that bullet has almost gone ½ a mile. Some of the fastest passenger (non-sports/exotic) cars have a hard time running the ¼ mile in 10 seconds or less. If the GG had a 15 second head start, the bullet would take less than 2 seconds to catch up.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


And DM, this wasn’t necessarily an attack on you, just a response. Thanks.

 

[Double Maduro]

NineseveN,

In what manner? In the manner of holding a firearm. Manner enough for me to warrant the end of the bg’s life. I don’t care if the kid said please and sir, with a rifle in hand, it puts all the context anyone will ever need on the conversation.

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

Read my posts.

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

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

Like maybe be more aware of your surroundings.

DM

 

[NineseveN]

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

Nitpicking, you know what I meant, or at least I would hope so.

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

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

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

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

Like maybe be more aware of your surroundings.

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

 

[Byron Quick]

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

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

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

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

 

[JohnBT]

Nothing new in the morning paper. No mention at all. My retired neighbor watches the local news 2 or 3 times a day and she hasn't seen a thing on it either.

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

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

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

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

John

 

[Kharn]

Well, I guess you could call a Mk19 a 40mm handgun, since its not fired from the shoulder:

But there arent many semiauto ones about...

Kharn

 

[marley]

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

 

[BluesBear]

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

Some of you are acting like he parked his bike 500yards away and just casually strolled over to the car.
:banghead:
This was on a city street. I'll wager the moment he dismounted he was close enough for a Tueler drill. Fight or flight. In this case theman in the car had control by choosing Fight. had he chosen Flight the possibilities would have been out of his contol.
I probably would have shot him too.

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

"They just cannot see him having a gun,"
Family members "just don't know why" someone would shoot him, she said.
...never knew him to be in possession of a gun.
"He's never been arrested, never been in any trouble,"

Of course they cannot see it because they are poster droids for self-absorption.
Pay attention people... PARENT is also a VERB!
A proper parent knows what's going on in their child's life.


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

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

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

 

[Elmer]

I am deeply sorry for the man who had to shoot him.
His life will never be the same.

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

All for trying to protect himself.

 

[pax]

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

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

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

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

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

"Wrong."

"Huh? But the book said -- "

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

"Yes, sir."

"Did you housebreak him?"

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

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

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

"What did you do?"

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

"Surely he could not understand your words?"

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

"Uh ... probably drive him crazy!"

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[snip]

Mr. Dubois then turned to me. "I told you that 'juveline delinquent' is a contradiction in terms. 'Delinquent' means 'failing in duty.' But duty is an adult virtue -- indeed a juvenile becomes an adult when, and only when, he acquires a knowledge of duty and embraces it as dearer than the self-love he was born with. There never was, there cannot be, a 'juvenile delinquent.' But for every juvenile criminal there are always one or more adult delinquents -- people of mature years who either do not know their duty, or who, knowing it, fail.

So I don't feel too bad for the poor family whose child is dead. I only mourn for the fact that a child of 14 is still a child, and should have had a complete and healthy life still ahead of him. I'm not excusing his actions (he paid the ultimate penalty for them, and rightfully so!), but I place the blame more upon the adults around him who obviously failed to do what parents must do if their children are to become healthy, contributing members of the community.

pax

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