Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 25 of 27

Thread: !!CWL holder kills would be attacker

  1. #1
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    15

    Post imported post


  2. #2
    Regular Member possumboy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Dumfries, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    1,090

    Post imported post

    All I could think as I read this:

    "So those people think life becomes less important somewhere between 16 and 24. They would rather the 25 year old (the victim) be dead than a 15 year old criminal who illegally had a gun.

    Catch the part about anger in the community over it? They are wanting to get guns out of the vitcims hands so they can rob at will.

  3. #3
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    Bristow, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    491

    Post imported post

    I hope this guy does not have to defend his life again as Family or Friends decide to seek revenge . If I were him I would watch my back very carefully right now or move if possible . The family of the perp. seem to have the attitude that he was in the right .

  4. #4
    State Researcher HankT's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Invisible Mode
    Posts
    6,217

    Post imported post

    duck ninja wrote: Odd that the reporters would not deign to mention whichof the two youths pulled out the gun on Mr. Wells. 4 people worked on the story, plus an editor, and they can't even specify a crucial element like that. That's about as shoddy a piece of work as you can see out there.

    The"opposing" side being reported by the author team formulaically is simply anti-gun spin. No one seriously disagrees with the outcome. Not even the deceased kid's family.

    Score one for the good guys. Lethal force is justified under threat of lethal force.

  5. #5
    State Researcher
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    Minnesota
    Posts
    2,350

    Post imported post

    If I lived in that area I'd definately ask him if he wanted to go have some lunch and talk about it, and I would offer to hang out with him once in a while so he had a few guns there protecting him. I would honestly be afraid that the family of that kid would try something stupid....he obviously hadn't been raised right, so I can't imagine what the rest of the family is like.

  6. #6
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    Kirkland, Washington, USA
    Posts
    126

    Post imported post

    Amazing, you gotta love the spin on this story.

    Toby Hoover, of the Ohio Coalition Against Gun Violence, said she had not heard of any other fatal shooting involving a concealed-carry permit holder. "This is one of the few where they actually used it to stop a crime," Hoover said. But, she said, "there's still a dead kid here."
    "...one of the few..." Do they have CCP holders commiting crimes out there? Still a dead kid? That says something about the kids parents to me. Not that any parent can be expected to control a 15yr old, but raising a criminal? The "kid" was a criminal. May be sick to hear, but the victim may have saved other people from being vicims.


    Grrr...



  7. #7
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    15

    Post imported post

    "Gun supporters said the weapon saved Wells' life. Opponents said it took Buford's - that the 15-year-old might be alive if a citizen had not been armed. "

    You've got to be kidding me! Somebody's missing the point.If the 15 year old had not attempted a felony armed robbery he might be alive. Yes it's tragic that a 15 year old lost his life, but the tragedy lies in his decision to become a criminal. I'm glad that a law abiding citizen was able to protect his life from one that might take it.

  8. #8
    Regular Member Jamfish's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    Greater Seattle Area
    Posts
    168

    Post imported post

    A man who answered a phone number for Wells refused to comment and hung up. No one answered the door at Wells' home. Plain Dealer reporters Jesse Tinsley and Brie Zeltner and researcher Cheryl Diamond contributed to this story.
    Yeah; I wouldn't talk to the Plain Dealer, either. Dishonest reporting and horribly dishonest editorials.
    Support these forums, please donate if you are able to OpenCarry.Org!

  9. #9
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Post Falls, Idaho, USA
    Posts
    19

    Post imported post

    duck ninja wrote:
    "Gun supporters said the weapon saved Wells' life. Opponents said it took Buford's (life) - that the 15-year-old might be alive if a citizen had not been armed. "

    You've got to be kidding me! Somebody's missing the point.If the 15 year old had not attempted a felony armed robbery he might be alive. Yes it's tragic that a 15 year old lost his life, but the tragedy lies in his decision to become a criminal. I'm glad that a law abiding citizen was able to protect his life from one that might take it.
    I agree. These people defending the trigger-happy criminals are horrible! They call us murderers if we defend our lives; and even worse, they take it upon themselves to see to it that our means of self-preservation (bearing arms) be taken from us (by one way or another). That is murder, plain and simple. Our courts may let them off easy, but I sure wouldn't want to be in their shoes come judgment day!

    I can hear it now... "a student had a gun and he ... took Seung-Hui Cho's life. That 23-year-old might be alive if a citizen had not been armed." Oh, but no, they already made sure that won't happen. I mean, can't you imagine how horrible that would be for a "young boy" to be "murdered" just because he pulled out his gun to shoot people? Give me a break!

    Sarcastically & Righteously Angry,
    Zach Doty

  10. #10
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    Redmond, Washington, USA
    Posts
    618

    Post imported post

    And next comes the wrongful death lawsuit. With free assistance from the ACLU and the gun ban people...

    Thanks!
    Greg

  11. #11
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Tacoma, Washington, USA
    Posts
    1,327

    Post imported post

    I don't suppose there's any way to move this from the Washington section to the Ohio section?

  12. #12
    State Researcher HankT's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Invisible Mode
    Posts
    6,217

    Post imported post

    I don't see anyone seriously defending the deceased. It's too clear cut of a case. The ACLU and the gun banners are not going to give free resources to an effort to make Mr. Wells pay a legalprice for properly defending himself.

    Guevara andO'Donnell tried to best to spin the story. But there is no "reigniting of the gun debate" as a result of Buford's attempted robbery and demise. They lied.

    BTW, this link should hearten some here:

    http://www.buckeyefirearms.org/article3692.html

  13. #13
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    15

    Post imported post

    HankT wrote:
    I don't see anyone seriously defending the deceased. It's too clear cut of a case. The ACLU and the gun banners are not going to give free resources to an effort to make Mr. Wells pay a legalprice for properly defending himself.

    Guevara andO'Donnell tried to best to spin the story. But there is no "reigniting of the gun debate" as a result of Buford's attempted robbery and demise. They lied.

    BTW, this link should hearten some here:

    http://www.buckeyefirearms.org/article3692.html
    Great link HankT, very good read!!

  14. #14
    State Researcher HankT's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Invisible Mode
    Posts
    6,217

    Post imported post

    Here's another link:

    http://www.buckeyefirearms.org/article3701.html

    It is very clear that the Cleveland community sees this event as a case ofa lawfully armed citizen defending himself against an armed robbery and having had to use lethal force.

    The press played out aformulaic role in publishing some dissent but it came only from the extremities of thecommunity, not the heart, not the mainstream.

    There will be no wrongful death suit, no team of ACLU lawyers showing up, no gun debate reignition. There isno need forsarcasm or righteousness.

    This is a clear win for the wisdom and efficacyof bearing arms in order to defend ourselves fromthethugsof the world.

    Unfortunately, some remaining thugs decided to retaliate against Mr. Wells, just as DreQo feared.

  15. #15
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    Redmond, Washington, USA
    Posts
    618

    Post imported post

    HankT wrote:
    Here's another link:

    http://www.buckeyefirearms.org/article3701.html

    It is very clear that the Cleveland community sees this event as a case ofa lawfully armed citizen defending himself against an armed robbery and having had to use lethal force.
    Both of those are great. Unfortunatly only the gun enthusiasts are going to see any of that. If any of those were actually in "news"papers that the general public could see it would be one thing.

    You say that "the Cleveland community sees this event...". I see a pro-firearm site that has members who are supportive. I don't see the community. If that site were the local "news" organization, then I'd see the Cleveland community.

    I agree 100% with everything that is said there, but then again, so would 99.9% of anyone who would go to a pro-gun, pro-defense site.

    What we *really* need is legislation that would prohibit ANY lawsuit from being initiated either by a criminal or on behalf of a criminal for any action perpetrated against them during the commission of their crime.

    Thanks!
    Greg

  16. #16
    State Researcher HankT's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Invisible Mode
    Posts
    6,217

    Post imported post

    gregma wrote:
    You say that "the Cleveland community sees this event...". I see a pro-firearm site that has members who are supportive. I don't see the community. If that site were the local "news" organization, then I'd see the Cleveland community.
    I refer to the count by Regina Brett:

    "More than 400 readers told me Damon Wells had every right to shoot and kill Buford. Only 20 disagreed."


    as being the reflection of the community. A reflection that the community sees, well, the obvious. (Although, as you imply, obviousto us isn't always obvious to others.)That the Plain Dealer publishes her article with those numbers indicates they know it too, the original unethically anti-gun spun article in the PD by Guevara andO'Donnell notwithstanding.

    No one important disagrees in any important way with what Mr. Wells did. It's like winning a football game 95 to 6. The two field goals ain't really important. It's a huge success with nothing really wrong.

  17. #17
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    Redmond, Washington, USA
    Posts
    618

    Post imported post

    HankT wrote:
    gregma wrote:
    You say that "the Cleveland community sees this event...". I see a pro-firearm site that has members who are supportive. I don't see the community. If that site were the local "news" organization, then I'd see the Cleveland community.
    I refer to the count by Regina Brett:

    "More than 400 readers told me Damon Wells had every right to shoot and kill Buford. Only 20 disagreed."
    I actually clicked through the link on that firearms web page and actually did get to the original "news" organization.

    http://www.cleveland.com/news/plaind...xml&coll=2

    Yup, I agree. I was thinking that the term "readers" referred to the readers of the pro-gun/pro-defense web site. But in this case it refers to the readers of the major news site.

    Thanks!
    Greg

  18. #18
    State Researcher HankT's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Invisible Mode
    Posts
    6,217

    Post imported post

    Ahh, I see where you were coming from now.

    You would be correct, ofcourse, in looking forany bias in the numbers. Asking only pro-gunners what they thought of the Buford shooting wouldn't get one much information....

  19. #19
    Founder's Club Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    No longer in Alexandria, Egypt
    Posts
    2,798

    Post imported post

    kparker wrote:
    I don't suppose there's any way to move this from the Washington section to the Ohio section?
    Yep! Duly moved...

  20. #20
    State Researcher HankT's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Invisible Mode
    Posts
    6,217

    Post imported post

    NAACP Leader Calls Homicide Among Young Black Men Epidemic
    Cleveland Leaders Respond To Shooting Death Of 15-Year-Old

    UPDATED: 6:09 pm EDT April 27, 2007


    CLEVELAND -- [/b]The Cleveland NAACP responded Friday to criticism surrounding the shooting death of a teenage boy during a robbery.

    NAACP President George Forbes and Cleveland Councilman Zach Reed said the black community failed 15-year-old Arthur Buford, NewsChannel5 reported.

    They said Buford was wrong for allegedly trying to rob Damon Wells at gunpoint on Saturday.

    Wells opened fire and killed Buford at East 134th Street and Kinsman. Police said Wells had a valid weapons permit and used the gun in self-defense.

    "Then you have a 26-year-old young man who had every right to protect his life, protect his fiance and protect his property. But he has to life with the fact that for the rest of his lie he shot a 15-year-old boy," said Reed.

    "That man had a right to do what he did. If he didn't do it, we'd be sitting here today mourning him rather than the 15-year-old," said Forbes.

    They pointed out that homicide is the leading cause of death for black men 15 to 24.

    Forbes said that if we saw those kind of numbers for an illness, the community would be outraged.

    He said the community should also treat this as an epidemic.


    http://www.newsnet5.com/news/13213830/detail.html?rss=nn5&psp=news


  21. #21
    State Researcher
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    , Indiana, USA
    Posts
    1,606

    Post imported post

    I like how the kids sister asked the police why he wasnt charged.

    Not only was her brother a minor with a firearm, but not registered, no permit, and he was in the middle of a criminal act, nowhere does she bring this up, too bad you can't shoot people for having bad logic.

  22. #22
    State Researcher HankT's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Invisible Mode
    Posts
    6,217

    Post imported post

    More evidence of progress...




    Gunman with permit suspect in shooting

    Friday, April 27, 2007
    Gabriel Baird

    Plain Dealer Reporter


    A permit to carry a conceal- ed weapon is not a license to shoot.

    A bar confrontation early Wednesday highlights the difference.

    About 2 a.m., Marlin Briggs, 38, was shot in the stomach at the Honey Do Club on St. Clair Avenue after an unidentified 59-year-old man struggled with Briggs' girlfriend.


    Briggs' friend, Earl Grays, 31, ran to a 1997 Monte Carlo and grabbed his .40-caliber Smith and Wesson handgun, which he has a permit to carry.

    Grays told police he fired "randomly" toward the bar, a report shows.

    Someone else also fired shots, he said, but it is not clear who shot first or whether Grays' life was in danger.

    The man Briggs had struggled with was hit in the left calf and twice in the foot. The police report does not make it clear whether the bullets were from Grays' gun.

    Grays got Briggs to the car and drove him to Huron Hospital. Now Grays and the 59-year-old man both are suspected in the incident.

    The case contrasted with Damon Wells' shooting Saturday of a suspected armed robber outside his home.

    When Wells shot Arthur Buford, he was protecting himself, police said.

    But investigators aren't sure that Grays was defending his life.

    In general, the law does not protect you if you shoot when you are not threatened or after the danger has passed.

    To reach this Plain Dealer reporter:

    gbaird@plaind.com, 216-999-4141


  23. #23
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    Redmond, Washington, USA
    Posts
    618

    Post imported post

    HankT wrote:
    In general, the law does not protect you if you shoot when you are not threatened or after the danger has passed.
    Hmmm. I know that at least here, you have the right to protect yourself, *OR* another person you feel needs protecting. Is that not the case there?

    Thanks!
    Greg

  24. #24
    State Researcher HankT's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Invisible Mode
    Posts
    6,217

    Post imported post

    gregma wrote:
    HankT wrote:
    In general, the law does not protect you if you shoot when you are not threatened or after the danger has passed.
    Hmmm. I know that at least here, you have the right to protect yourself, *OR* another person you feel needs protecting. Is that not the case there?
    I would think it is. The writer of the article is pathetically unclear about his point, but I think he is implying that the investigators were pondering the question of whether Grays or his pal were in "imminent" danger when Grays was shooting "randomly" at whatever/whomeverhe was shooting at.

    The entire reporting is poorly done and there has been no follow-up to clear up the questions that the article obviously raises.



  25. #25
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    14

    Post imported post

    HankT wrote:
    gregma wrote:
    HankT wrote:
    In general, the law does not protect you if you shoot when you are not threatened or after the danger has passed.
    Hmmm. I know that at least here, you have the right to protect yourself, *OR* another person you feel needs protecting. Is that not the case there?

    I would think it is. The writer of the article is pathetically unclear about his point, but I think he is implying that the investigators were pondering the question of whether Grays or his pal were in "imminent" danger when Grays was shooting "randomly" at whatever/whomeverhe was shooting at.

    The entire reporting is poorly done and there has been no follow-up to clear up the questions that the article obviously raises.
    Why couldn't the 2 men ages 31 and 38 protect the Girlfriend from a59 year old man who isn't even said to have a gun?i just cant understand why 2 YOUNG MEN help a women against a 59 YEAR OLD MAN? and i have seen these situations before, the Girlfriend wants to see if "her" man will stick up for her NO MATTER WHAT the circumstances so she starts a "scene" and OBVIOUSLY the 59 year old wasn't going to put up with her $h*t and THAT started the whole scene
    I COULD BE WRONG, but i doubt it,,i was once in a bar,seen a girl come up to the bar and steal some Bills & change from a guy at the bar,probably about $12 or so,,well the guy raised hell and here comes the thieving girls "boys" and she had the nerve to tell the guys that the other guy tried to kiss her and that's whythere was a "little" disturbance,,well as soon as i heard that i told the bar tender/owner what really happened and he listened to me because he knew i wouldn't lie to him since me and him are good friends so he threw ALL 3 of their asses out the door
    I live out here in Hillbilly country in the great State of Ohio,,and our bars out here don't call the Sheriff UNLESS it's absolutely needed!!!:shock:
    Bob

Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •