Texas park shootout

[CentralTexas]

3 Men Charged in Fatal Texas Park Shooting 2 hours, 39 minutes ago

Three men were charged in a shootout that left one man dead and six people injured at a birthday party in a public park, police said.

Terrance Terrell Stephenson, 24, was charged with felony murder in the 2 p.m. shooting at Smith Park on March 26, police said Friday.

Jerry Brightman, 33, was charged

 

[TexasRifleman]

Come on folks, post the link when doing this....

Linky

MARSHALL, Texas — Three men were charged in a shootout that left one man dead and six people injured at a birthday party in a public park, police said.

Terrance Terrell Stephenson, 24, was charged with felony murder in the 2 p.m. shooting at Smith Park on March 26, police said Friday.

Jerry Brightman, 33, was charged with felony deadly conduct and Ladarrean Leary, 25, was charged with unlawful possession of a firearm by a felon, police said.

An assault rifle was among several guns used in the shootout, which allegedly stemmed from an ongoing dispute between feuding groups. Police said Friday that detectives had recovered several weapons suspected of being used during the gun battle.

Lee Arthur McCowan, 29, of Marshall, died in the shootout.

Authorities continue to investigate the shooting.

Marshall is about 140 miles east of Dallas.

 

[beaucoup ammo]

Not Good

More fuel for the fire. Background check on these guys. Any with CHL's? I'd bet not.

 

[TexasRifleman]

Well, this happened a week ago and it hasn't even made the local press.

This is Texas after all, so the outrage is properly aimed at the criminals and not the tools they used.

 

[wally]

Ladarrean Leary, 25, was charged with unlawful possession of a firearm by a felon

Proves how anti-gun laws prevent crime, not!

I have noticed how every old SKS is now an "assult rifle" in the news. They won't let it go, we must keep our gaurd up!

--wally.

 

[Herself]

Denial -- not a river in Egypt!

This is Texas after all, so the outrage is properly aimed at the criminals and not the tools they used.

Oh really?

(Quoting from the Austin American-Statesman) An assault rifle was among several guns used in the shootout...

Bet you a cooky that "assault rifle" wasn't capable of selective fire!

Texas is a decent place and most Texans are fine folk. But the rot runs deep. We must be vigilant even when we believe ourselves to be in friendly territory.

In the Texas courts, this will in all probability play out much as the average THRer might hope: the bad guys will be duly convicted. But in the court of public opinion, there's people in the press out to get a "scary black rifle" lynched.

Yours is next. After, them Scary Assault Rifles is all alike. We gotta burn 'em out to save society an' goodness.

Don't we?

Blasted ijits!

--Herself

 

[Maxwell]

Sounds to me that people having an fude used illegal weapons in an illegal way, not an issue that gun control can solve or (it seems) was ever intended to solve.

It can be spun either way.

Consider the Lubys shooting. The only reason it became a turning point was because Ms. Hupp had brought the gun all the way as far as the car, left the gun out of reach due to the law, and then managed to survive the madmans shootout and give her testimony.

That situation could just as easily been spun into another gun control campaign without someone speaking up about the benefits of shooting badguys.
She represented the voters frustration with being made victems when they had the power and training to defend themselves, so it made a good election issue.

 

[TexasRifleman]

Bet you a cooky that "assault rifle" wasn't capable of selective fire!

Texas is a decent place and most Texans are fine folk. But the rot runs deep. We must be vigilant even when we believe ourselves to be in friendly territory.

Well, you are equating the "media" with "people". The media is always going to sensationalize everything, it's the job of thinking people to weed through it.

We do pretty well with that here.

 

[boofus]

Quoting from the Austin American-Statesman

Austin is a liberal <blight> on the red <tail> of Texas. Travis County was the only county in the entire state that voted for Kerry. It was the only county in the entire state that voted against the gay marriage amendment. So to see inaccurate anti-2a mishmash from Austin is no big surprise.

The felon shouldn't have been in possession of ANY firearm, regardless of what the liberal media decides to call it. But pass 1 more law, that'll make him reconsider his nefarious ways...

 

[robert garner]

deleted

 

[PlayboyPenguin]

I know I will get flamed for this but here goes.

I always find it funny that people make wide sweeping statements like "This shows how gun control doesn't do anything" when a criminal is found in possession of a firearm. Would it be fair to make a statement like "just goes to show that gun owners are going to shoot each other"?

Sometimes burglars get through deadbolts. Does this mean "deadbolts don't do anything to help secure your home"? If so we should just stop locking our doors? This is the same logic.

If reasonable gun control (in my opinion no violent felons, background check, no underage, and no mentally handicapped) keeps weapons out of the hands of just 50% of the people that would use them for evil deeds (and I am sure it actually does alot more than 50%) then it has succeded. It saved some lives and prevented some bad gun press. I just don't understand the "if one or two percent are going to be able to get them and kill innocents with them we might as well let them all have them" metality.

 

[Double Naught Spy]

You know what scares me more than the evil unarmed liberals who make broad generalizations are the evil armed conservatives who make equally wrong statements, using the same lack of information and same lack of insight in passing judgement on those without similar views.

Austin is a liberal <blight> on the red <tail> of Texas. Travis County was the only county in the entire state that voted for Kerry. It was the only county in the entire state that voted against the gay marriage amendment. So to see inaccurate anti-2a mishmash from Austin is no big surprise.

That is just an amazing statement, boofus, on Austin, the newspaper, and the people there based on a quote from the newspaper. Did you catch the name of the AAS reporter who wrote the story? No, you did not. Do you wonder why? It wasn't there. Do you wonder why it wasn't there? You should.

What makes this statement so unreasonable in this context is that the gross generalities claimed and attributed were not written by the Austin American Statesman or its staff. You can find the same article in Forbes on line. In both cases, the source is AP, not AAS.

Come on! Do you really think The Austin American Statesman paper would publish the article and not give credit to itself if it was the source for the story going out over the AP wire? They would not even attribute it to AP because they broke it. It is not the Austin American Stateman's story.

The Marshall News Messenger is running a similar longer story attributed to its staff. They work through AP as well. They are not citing AP for the story. Go figure.

It is sort of like getting a warrant served on the wrong house, boofus, and you are in the wrong house.

What you said about AAS might be true, but it is NOT true in relation to the context of this story.

I am all for keyboard commando kicking butt of Molon Labe enemies, but do it for justified reasons. There are more than enough justified reason without sloppily going out and finding unjustified reasons as an excuse.

 

[TexasRifleman]

The point is violence in endemic in the State of Texas.

Not more here than anywhere else. Violence always has, and always will, make it's appearance in a civilization. If it wasn't guns it would be sticks, and if not sticks then rocks. It has always been.

The mark of a great civilization is the recognition that such a thing will exist, and doing something about it, maybe even to the extreme.

I can't see a bunch of cavemen sitting around discussing a recent outbreak of violence and deciding to get rid of all the rocks.......they would more than likely bash in the heads of the offending parties and carry on. It is still to this day the best way to deal with this kind of thing. Severe penalties to the extreme, to make public examples of what will happen if you behave in this manner. We have lost the art of preventive punishment.

 

[Stevie-Ray]

I know I will get flamed for this but here goes.

I always find it funny that people make wide sweeping statements like "This shows how gun control doesn't do anything" when a criminal is found in possession of a firearm. Would it be fair to make a statement like "just goes to show that gun owners are going to shoot each other"?

Yes you will. Gun control that is wanted by today's gun-grabbing darlings DOESN'T do anything, except keep honest law-abiding citizens in some areas from possessing firearms. Why would a criminal care, when he generally steals his firearms or buys stolen ones?

Sometimes burglars get through deadbolts. Does this mean "deadbolts don't do anything to help secure your home"? If so we should just stop locking our doors? This is the same logic.

It's not the same logic. It's not even analogous. But since you asked, a deadbolt will not stop a determined thief. I know it wouldn't stop someone of my size. Deadbolts are mainly there to make so much noise when going through them, there is no question to the occupants or neighbors what is happening. Cat burglers or young toughs trying to be silent will generally move on to an easier mark.

If reasonable gun control (in my opinion no violent felons, background check, no underage, and no mentally handicapped) keeps weapons out of the hands of just 50% of the people that would use them for evil deeds (and I am sure it actually does alot more than 50%) then it has succeded. It saved some lives and prevented some bad gun press. I just don't understand the "if one or two percent are going to be able to get them and kill innocents with them we might as well let them all have them" metality

You are dangerously close to being one of those "It's for the children" lackies. I don't think anybody will argue the above points, but the point is you can't just say "That's where it stops, OK?" because they will agree with you, and then not stop. Gun-grabbers are quick to say, "This is all we want," like Sarah Brady did during the Brady campaign. Then when it passed and she was being congratulated, she said, "It's a good start." The banning and confiscation of all firearms will probably save many children from death, from careless placement of firearms by honest citizen parents. But the lives saved will pale compared to the number of lives lost due to armed criminals dining on newly disarmed victims. But I'm sure it will have been "for the children." Think about it.

 

[Maxwell]

Consider for a moment that even in prison under the unblinking eye of the government, prisoners get weapons and gut each other regularly.

f reasonable gun control keeps weapons out of the hands of just 50% of the people that would use them for evil deeds then it has succeded.

If 50% of the criminals have been disarmed, why has the crime level not dropped by 50%? Why not even 10%?

How can you prove its kept weapons out of the hands of the people that shouldnt have them when the crime rate does not change in favor of the new law?
Why am I more likely to be assaulted or killed now than I was before we started this experiment?

Consider the number of legit citizens we know have been disarmed. Its alot higher than the population these laws were supposedly targeted at.
Despite the fact we're supposed to be "safe from guns" theres a terrible shooting every day and stories of mad gunmen taking out rooms of unarmed citizens.

Know what that says to me?
In a group of 50 people, the only one left with a right to bear arms was the madman.
Id beg pardon if it was just once or twice, but if Im not mistaken we're at a half dozen mass shootings this year. Just like last year, and the year before.

When confronted with the facts many anti-guns admit the law was never intended to make us safe.

...Gee, thanks.
Next time dont do me any favors.

 

[Standing Wolf]

...the shootout, which allegedly stemmed from an ongoing dispute between feuding groups.

Sounds more like gangs to me. Have gangs been promoted to groups lately?

 

[PlayboyPenguin]

Maxwell, are you assuming that "all crime" stems from handgun usage? Because that is the only way taking the guns out of the hands of half the people that misuse them would decrease crime by 50%.

 

[Maxwell]

If reasonable gun control keeps weapons out of the hands of just 50% of the people that would use them for evil deeds then it has succeded.

If it would...

If 50% of the criminals have been disarmed, why has the crime level not dropped by 50%? Why not even 10%?

I want to see results...

According to the medias statistics, a good many more than 50% of the crimes are carried out with firearms. This is after we've already taken many guns from "the wrong hands".
We are not at the beginning of gun control, its not a proposal. We've done it already and spent billions in the process.

Where are the payoffs?
Why is it not working?

Compared to the times before gun control was popular:
Ownership is down, dealer numbers are down and fewer citizens are packing.
Likewise crime is up, assaults are up, mass shootings are up and rapes are up.

These results prettymuch mirror forign countries like sweden, the UK, Brazil, jamaica, and mexico.

Its not working.

The problem?
Look whos been disarmed!
Law minding citizens that either dont care to bother with all of the governments restrictions, dont qualify for whatever reason, or just cant afford it all.

Criminals never listend to the law before, I dont know what makes you think they will listen now.
Even if you get rid of every last gun on the planet we just go back to the good old days, when badguys terrorized the peasants with swords and clubs.

 

[boofus]

If reasonable gun control (in my opinion no violent felons, background check, no underage, and no mentally handicapped) keeps weapons out of the hands of just 50% of the people that would use them for evil deeds (and I am sure it actually does alot more than 50%) then it has succeded. It saved some lives and prevented some bad gun press. I just don't understand the "if one or two percent are going to be able to get them and kill innocents with them we might as well let them all have them" metality

Blue state nonsense.

In the past 70 years since the 1934 National Firearms Act there has only been 1 recorded instance of a legally owned machinegun being used in a crime. The 'reasonable gun control' measures include approval and signature by the police chief/sheriff, approval of transfer of ownership by the ATF, FBI background check, registration and licensing, transportation restrictions, access restrictions, 3-6 month waiting period and at the time the law was passed a 150% tax on the effected firearms.

But in 1986 the gun grabbers banned them anyway. There is no such thing as 'reasonable gun control', in the end the complete ban is the only thing that matters to liberals. Gun bans have nothing to do with crime and everything to do with making people powerless and easy prey for victimization.

Of course what else do you expect from the Party of Jim Crow, George Wallace, and Senator Robert 'Grant Kleagle of the Empire' Byrd.

 

[TexasRifleman]

In the past 70 years since the 1934 National Firearms Act there has only been 1 recorded instance of a legally owned machinegun being used in a crime

And it belonged to a cop by the way, one of the "elite".

 

[Raph84]

Maybe I missed something, but I really don't find what playboy penguin said that divisive or surprising a coment. I don't think a felon should have a gun (unless he has had his record expunged. Some might say too many things are felonies...I agree, but that is an issue for the states to settle not the fed govt.) I agree that those under the legal age should not own a firearm (sorry too many parents don't raise kids right I think 30-40yrs ago we could trust parents to make the decision when timmy should own a shotgun but not anymore). I also think that people who are certifiably not in control of their faculties should not have a weapon.

It sounds like peoples real problem with the post is that he did not say "gun control is bad mkay"

Some gun control is bad, some is good. It just seems like people are reading into something that was not stated in bringing up the national firearms act and the '86 machine gun ban etc.

 

[Sgt.Slappy]

Some gun control is bad, some is good.

Exactly how does any (spit)reasonable gun-control(spit) law, prevent a determined law-breaker from obtaining a firearm?

... a hint: It doesn't.

The infernal law machine has deemed Washington D.C. a "handgun-free zone", yet even the crack-smoking ex-mayor Marion Barry was held up at gun point. Poetic Justice? Good Gun control laws? The Stark Fist of Removal? Only Dobbs knows...

 

[drinks]

CP, PP Rp84;
Dear sirs, please go pee up a rope.
It would suit your accumen and lack of reason.

 

[Maxwell]

I don't think a felon should have a gun (unless he has had his record expunged.

How do you know who is a felon and who is not?
How do you know if a felons record has been cleaned?

Here comes the bureaucracy!

Since we've decided that the feds needed to control everything for our safety, what has happend to our safety?
In some parts your chance of becomming a victem has quadrupled if not worse. Our personal security has not improved in recent years despite their active meddeling in daily affairs.

How many school shootings did we have before children were officially banned from owning guns? How many mass shootings occured before the mentally ill were also banned?
Both where extremely rare events, now their damn near weekly. 3 diner attacks in just one state in less than one month, almost as many "gun free zone" shootouts at the same time.

I understand you feel that dangerous weapons are more dangerous in the wrong hands, but the cure here is worse than the disease.
A madman will find a gun, disarming everyone else only increases the damage he can do.

 

[baz]

CP, PP Rp84;
Dear sirs, please go pee up a rope.
It would suit your accumen and lack of reason.

Profound response.

I'm wearing flame retardant, so I'm not afraid to take sides with PP, though I might not agree with his reasoning. I have no problem with violent felons being denied the right to own firearms. It has nothing to do with whether or not they will follow the law in acquiring firearms. If it were the case that laws preventing violent felons from owning firearms did not stop a single one of them from acquiring a weapon illegally, it would no more affect the reasonableness of the law against them owning firearms than the reasonableness of other laws that are routinely broken. Since laws against murder are routinely broken, does it follow that such laws are senseless? Nor do such laws necessarily have anything to do with preventing crime. Murder is wrong, regardless of whether a law against it, or the threat of punishment, actually does anything to prevent it from occuring.

Similarly, some restrictions on the ownership of firearms may be reasonable quite apart from whether or not such restrictions prevent crime. Those reasons deserve reasonable consideration, not stupid remarks like peeing up a rope.

There are people we do not trust to drive cars. Since some of them are going to drive anyway; does it follow that we do away with licensing drivers altogether? Laws against drunk driving will not stop people from driving drunk. Does that mean we throw out the laws?

I don't know which is worse, rabid anti-gun nuts, or pro-gun nuts who just as unreasoning and unreasonable.