Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 25 of 29

Thread: CCW DRUNKEN Shootout.

  1. #1
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    Lake Charles Area, Louisiana, USA
    Posts
    1,723

    Post imported post

    This isn't good for ANY Gun Toter.
    3 Charged In Road Rage Case
    Two Drivers, & Wife Charged After Shots Fired On I-94
    POSTED: Tuesday, March 3, 2009

    http://www.clickondetroit.com/mostpo...ail.html#video


    When you own a CCW permit, you accept a TON of Restrictions on your RTKBA.


  2. #2
    Campaign Veteran deepdiver's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Southeast, Missouri, USA
    Posts
    5,974

    Post imported post

    When you accept a CCW you take on a great deal of responsibility which generally would preclude you from having a drunken running gun battle from cars on the interstate. This is a horrible incident for all gun owners as it just gives ammunition to gun grabbers/banners.
    Bob Owens @ Bearing Arms (paraphrased): "These people aren't against violence; they're very much in favor of violence. They're against armed resistance."

  3. #3
    Regular Member Michigander's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Mulligan's Valley
    Posts
    4,830

    Post imported post

    Luckily no one died, but they're in big trouble.

    What they did is already illegal by several laws, and doesn't call for new ones. This isn't any anti fuel I don't think, because you can't legislate a felony away, you can only punish them. Like will happen in this case.
    Answer every question about open carry in Michigan you ever had with one convenient and free book- http://libertyisforeveryone.com/open-carry-resources/

    The complete and utter truth can be challenged from every direction and it will always hold up. Accordingly there are few greater displays of illegitimacy than to attempt to impede free thought and communication.

  4. #4
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    , South Carolina, USA
    Posts
    2,247

    Post imported post

    Michigander wrote:
    Luckily no one died, but they're in big trouble.

    What they did is already illegal by several laws, and doesn't call for new ones. This isn't any anti fuel I don't think, because you can't legislate a felony away, you can only punish them. Like will happen in this case.
    It always amazes me at the number of people that will call for new laws after something like this where 15 laws were already broken. If the first 15 or so laws didn't work what makes them think more will.

  5. #5
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    Lake Charles Area, Louisiana, USA
    Posts
    1,723

    Post imported post

    PT111 wrote:
    Michigander wrote:
    Luckily no one died, but they're in big trouble.

    What they did is already illegal by several laws, and doesn't call for new ones. This isn't any anti fuel I don't think, because you can't legislate a felony away, you can only punish them. Like will happen in this case.
    It always amazes me at the number of people that will call for new laws after something like this where 15 laws were already broken. If the first 15 or so laws didn't work what makes them think more will.
    The koolaid makes them do it ....

  6. #6
    Campaign Veteran deepdiver's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Southeast, Missouri, USA
    Posts
    5,974

    Post imported post

    I think it is ammunition for antis because when we point out that statistically CCers are among the very most law abiding citizens in this nation they argue back about these 3 drunken retards. In a world where critical thinking skills were still taught and developed in the government school system not a problem. In today's world it takes a large number of reported self-defense uses of firearms by CCers to counter one publicized grossly stupid act by a CCer. And for OC it is more damaging because the antis can say, "See, these drunken retards passed background checks and still did this. Can you imagine what will happen when we have all sorts of people running around OC who haven't been through the same screening?"
    Bob Owens @ Bearing Arms (paraphrased): "These people aren't against violence; they're very much in favor of violence. They're against armed resistance."

  7. #7
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    Lake Charles Area, Louisiana, USA
    Posts
    1,723

    Post imported post

    deepdiver wrote:
    I think it is ammunition for antis because when we point out that statistically CCers are among the very most law abiding citizens in this nation they argue back about these 3 drunken retards. In a world where critical thinking skills were still taught and developed in the government school system not a problem. In today's world it takes a large number of reported self-defense uses of firearms by CCers to counter one publicized grossly stupid act by a CCer. And for OC it is more damaging because the antis can say, "See, these drunken retards passed background checks and still did this. Can you imagine what will happen when we have all sorts of people running around OC who haven't been through the same screening?"
    Doesn't help the Black Community either.

    How about the one picture of the guy who's eyes are closed :?





  8. #8
    Regular Member Michigander's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Mulligan's Valley
    Posts
    4,830

    Post imported post

    Dustin wrote:
    Doesn't help the Black Community either.

    How about the one picture of the guy who's eyes are closed :?
    The thing is, this is the Detroit area. There are hard core idiots of every race here, but there are plenty of black criminals and idiots around here. It's pretty easy to sum up; Detroit is almost exclusively black, and it is the most dangerous city in the country according to some studies. I'm not racist, and in fact I am one tiny part black, but it is what it is.
    Answer every question about open carry in Michigan you ever had with one convenient and free book- http://libertyisforeveryone.com/open-carry-resources/

    The complete and utter truth can be challenged from every direction and it will always hold up. Accordingly there are few greater displays of illegitimacy than to attempt to impede free thought and communication.

  9. #9
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    Newport News, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    492

    Post imported post

    In a city where 90% of the people are black and 90% of the criminals are black and 90% of the people arrested are black , that is not racism, that is the law of probabilities.



    Taking notice of that does not make you a racist, it just makes you an astute observer.

  10. #10
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    Centennial, Colorado, USA
    Posts
    1,412

    Post imported post

    deepdiver wrote:
    When you acceptcarrying a weaponyou take on a great deal of responsibility which generally would preclude you from having a drunken running gun battle from cars on the interstate. This is a horrible incident for all gun owners as it just gives ammunition to gun grabbers/banners.
    FIFY

  11. #11
    Regular Member FMCDH's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    St. Louis, MO
    Posts
    2,043

    Post imported post

    deepdiver wrote:
    I think it is ammunition for antis because when we point out that statistically CCers are among the very most law abiding citizens in this nation they argue back about these 3 drunken retards. In a world where critical thinking skills were still taught and developed in the government school system not a problem. In today's world it takes a large number of reported self-defense uses of firearms by CCers to counter one publicized grossly stupid act by a CCer. And for OC it is more damaging because the antis can say, "See, these drunken retards passed background checks and still did this. Can you imagine what will happen when we have all sorts of people running around OC who haven't been through the same screening?"
    Well, they wont pass their background checks anymore!

    That probably wont keep them from carrying firearms in the future however, as we all know, criminals don't pay attention to laws, and if they are willing to shoot at each other indiscriminately on a public road in moving vehicles, then they certainly are not going to give a second thought to carrying a gun illegally.

    This would have happened with these guys, CCP or no CCP.

  12. #12
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    , South Carolina, USA
    Posts
    2,247

    Post imported post

    Dustin wrote:
    This isn't good for ANY Gun Toter.
    3 Charged In Road Rage Case
    Two Drivers, & Wife Charged After Shots Fired On I-94
    POSTED: Tuesday, March 3, 2009

    http://www.clickondetroit.com/mostpo...ail.html#video


    When you own a CCW permit, you accept a TON of Restrictions on your RTKBA.
    Are you saying that if they didn't have a CCW then what they did would have been OK?

  13. #13
    Founder's Club Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Fairfax Co., VA
    Posts
    18,766

    Post imported post

    I don't worry too muchthat stories like these can be used by the anti-s.

    Being alive and breathing is enough ammunition for the anti-s. In their minds, everyone is a latent criminal who would sooner or later misuse a firearm. They want everyone disarmed.

    The problem here is not that these clowns make gun owners look bad. Thatwould be no different from saying all men who wear boots are bad because some Hells Angels are into drugs.

    The problem is that some people believe in prior restraint on fundamental human rights.

    The clowns in the story had a right to arms. They screwed up. Apply appropriate penalties after the screw-up. Who knows. Maybe they'll learn their lesson.

    The anti-s can use this incident for ammunition. Fine. The whole reason we do what we do isbecause of the anti-s. If there weren't any anti-s, then pro-gunners wouldn't be active about guns.

    If the biggest counter-effort I have to face is having this story thrown up at me, I'll consider the war nearly won.
    I'll make you an offer: I will argue and fight for all of your rights, if you will do the same for me. That is the only way freedom can work. We have to respect all rights, all the time--and strive to win the rights of the other guy as much as for ourselves.

    If I am equal to another, how can I legitimately govern him without his express individual consent?

    There is no human being on earth I hate so much I would actually vote to inflict government upon him.

  14. #14
    Regular Member Alexcabbie's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Alexandria, Virginia, United States
    Posts
    2,290

    Post imported post

    The deadliest weapons in this story are not the guns but the automobiles. One bullet can kill one person but a car out of control and going across a median can wipe out several innocent families. And these morons were drunk on top of it??

    Hells bells. These buffons were dangerous before they ever grabbed a pistol. And they are exactly the kind of folk that a firearm is probably the only certain defense against.

    I can be careful about who I pick up in my cab and where I go, etc. What I CANNOT predict is when or if some a&*^hole drunk is going to veer across the center line and knock me and my passenger(s) into next week, if not Kingdom Come. Maybe this firefight was beneficial in that it alerted the authorities and got them off the road. Any you antis ever think about THAT??

  15. #15
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    Lake Charles Area, Louisiana, USA
    Posts
    1,723

    Post imported post

    PT111 wrote:
    Dustin wrote:
    This isn't good for ANY Gun Toter.
    3 Charged In Road Rage Case
    Two Drivers, & Wife Charged After Shots Fired On I-94
    POSTED: Tuesday, March 3, 2009

    http://www.clickondetroit.com/mostpo...ail.html#video


    When you own a CCW permit, you accept a TON of Restrictions on your RTKBA.
    Are you saying that if they didn't have a CCW then what they did would have been OK?
    Can you please show me, where in my OP, that you derived that question ?


  16. #16
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    , South Carolina, USA
    Posts
    2,247

    Post imported post

    Dustin wrote:
    PT111 wrote:
    Dustin wrote:
    This isn't good for ANY Gun Toter.
    3 Charged In Road Rage Case
    Two Drivers, & Wife Charged After Shots Fired On I-94
    POSTED: Tuesday, March 3, 2009

    http://www.clickondetroit.com/mostpo...ail.html#video


    When you own a CCW permit, you accept a TON of Restrictions on your RTKBA.
    Are you saying that if they didn't have a CCW then what they did would have been OK?
    Can you please show me, where in my OP, that you derived that question ?

    I am just wondering what rights you give up by getting a CCW. You say that they have a ton of restrictions on their rights by having a CCW I took it that if they didn't have the CCW then they would have had the rights to shoot at each other.

    I know you didn't post the comment below but I really thought that you had the same repsonsibilitiesto not shoot at people on the Interstate while drunk. Both posts make it sound that if they didn't have CCW they wouldn't have been arrested.

    Two fellows driving down the Interstate having a gun battle is bad with or without a CCW. I can't see where having a CCW had anything to do with whole deal.

    When you accept a CCW you take on a great deal of responsibility which generally would preclude you from having a drunken running gun battle from cars on the interstate.

  17. #17
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    Lake Charles Area, Louisiana, USA
    Posts
    1,723

    Post imported post

    PT111 wrote:

    I am just wondering what rights you give up by getting a CCW. You say that they have a ton of restrictions on their rights by having a CCW I took it that if they didn't have the CCW then they would have had the rights to shoot at each other.

    I know you didn't post the comment below but I really thought that you had the same repsonsibilitiesto not shoot at people on the Interstate while drunk. Both posts make it sound that if they didn't have CCW they wouldn't have been arrested.

    Two fellows driving down the Interstate having a gun battle is bad with or without a CCW. I can't see where having a CCW had anything to do with whole deal.
    Oh I see. No, I was just pointing out that by having a CCW, you can draw more charges against you. b/c there is more restrictions placed upon Where/How you can carry concealed. For example in Louisiana, article 1 sec 11 mentions NO exceptions to the right to bear arms, none. The only time restrictions on firearms appear is when the law is in refernce to Concealed Handguns.

    So now these folks are recieving EXTRA charges, b/c they were CCW permit holders and were drunk with their guns in the car;Charges that aren't or can't be filed against OC'ers.

    There are also MANY other restrictions for CCW holders as well. They vary by state.


  18. #18
    Campaign Veteran deepdiver's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Southeast, Missouri, USA
    Posts
    5,974

    Post imported post

    PT111 wrote:
    When you accept a CCW you take on a great deal of responsibility which generally would preclude you from having a drunken running gun battle from cars on the interstate.
    I made the above comment playing off Dustin's comment about CCW and it was intended as slightly tongue in cheek as to say a drunken running gun battle from cars on the interstate is irresponsible would be an understatement not just generally but nearly absolutely.
    Bob Owens @ Bearing Arms (paraphrased): "These people aren't against violence; they're very much in favor of violence. They're against armed resistance."

  19. #19
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    , South Carolina, USA
    Posts
    2,247

    Post imported post

    Dustin wrote:
    Oh I see. No, I was just pointing out that by having a CCW, you can draw more charges against you. b/c there is more restrictions placed upon Where/How you can carry concealed. For example in Louisiana, article 1 sec 11 mentions NO exceptions to the right to bear arms, none. The only time restrictions on firearms appear is when the law is in refernce to Concealed Handguns.

    So now these folks are recieving EXTRA charges, b/c they were CCW permit holders and were drunk with their guns in the car;Charges that aren't or can't be filed against OC'ers.

    There are also MANY other restrictions for CCW holders as well. They vary by state.
    If you are in LA and have a CCW do you have to CCor can you still OC? If you OC and have your gun will you be charged as if you CC ignoring the fact that what you were doing was legal if you didn't have a CCW. For instance can you OC while drunk but not if you have a CCW? If your CCW is revoked does that mean you can't OC from then on?

    In SC OC is not allowed except on private property, in your caror while hunting or fishing. The law makes no distinction bereween OC or CC in those places. CC is allowed in all other places except the special restricted places with a CWP. In SC you do not lose any rights by having a CWP. You can lose your CWP but that does not affect your rights to OC.

  20. #20
    State Researcher Kevin Jensen's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Santaquin, Utah, USA
    Posts
    2,313

    Post imported post

    I would like to point out that nowhere in the story does it imply that any on these fuctards had a permit.

    Here is the misleading portion of the story.

    Both Griffin and Hatchett were charged with two felony counts of assault with a dangerous weapon, operating while intoxicated and a misdemeanor CCW violation. Their bonds were set at $10,000.



    Additionally, Griffin's 41-year-old wife, Lisa, was charged with a misdemeanor CCW violation. Her bond was set at $100.
    The story says that they were charged with misdemeanor CCW violations.

    Chances are that they were charged with carrying a concealed firearm without a permit.

    Sounds likebad reporting if you ask me.
    "An armed society is a polite society. Manners are good when one may have to back up his acts with his life." Robert A. Heinlein

  21. #21
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    Lake Charles Area, Louisiana, USA
    Posts
    1,723

    Post imported post

    SGT Jensen wrote:
    I would like to point out that nowhere in the story does it imply that any on these fuctards had a permit.

    Here is the misleading portion of the story.

    Both Griffin and Hatchett were charged with two felony counts of assault with a dangerous weapon, operating while intoxicated and a misdemeanor CCW violation. Their bonds were set at $10,000.



    Additionally, Griffin's 41-year-old wife, Lisa, was charged with a misdemeanor CCW violation. Her bond was set at $100.
    The story says that they were charged with misdemeanor CCW violations.

    Chances are that they were charged with carrying a concealed firearm without a permit.

    Sounds likebad reporting if you ask me.
    Here you go,





    Just kidding :P

    Towards the end of the video, the female on the phone CLEARLY tells the 911 operator, that her husband did indeed have a CCW. Then it was later confirmed that THREE of them had permits. The wife and Husband in the Intredpid, and the single male in the SUV.

    Not sure how you missed that in the video.







  22. #22
    Regular Member Alexcabbie's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Alexandria, Virginia, United States
    Posts
    2,290

    Post imported post

    SGT Jensen wrote:
    I would like to point out that nowhere in the story does it imply that any on these fuctards had a permit.

    Here is the misleading portion of the story.

    Both Griffin and Hatchett were charged with two felony counts of assault with a dangerous weapon, operating while intoxicated and a misdemeanor CCW violation. Their bonds were set at $10,000.



    Additionally, Griffin's 41-year-old wife, Lisa, was charged with a misdemeanor CCW violation. Her bond was set at $100.
    The story says that they were charged with misdemeanor CCW violations.

    Chances are that they were charged with carrying a concealed firearm without a permit.

    Sounds likebad reporting if you ask me.
    Sorry Sarge. But the video tv reporter definitely said they all had concealed permits. And the charge was carrying a firearm "while drunk" which according to the reporter is a "4-year felony" in whatever state that was. Still, even without a CWP these morons would probably have been packing heat anyway. And this EXTREMELY ISOLATED instance is a far cry from what the drive-bys constantly warned about as the "shall-issue" movement gathered momentum in the late 1980s. A CWP holder acting like this is - and no joke - rarer than a cop beating the crap out of a citizen or, let's say, busting into an innocent Mayor's home and shooting his dogs.

  23. #23
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Burton, Michigan
    Posts
    3,361

    Post imported post

    http://www.freep.com/article/2009030...+Macomb+County+

    Macomb County Sheriff Mark Hackel called it "the ultimate road rage incident."

    "We've never encountered anything like it," Hackel said Tuesday in announcing the arrests of three people involved in a high-speed shootout along I-94 that waged from Detroit to Chesterfield Township early Sunday.
    Arrested from one vehicle were Grosse Pointe Farms residents Dion Griffin, 46, and his 41-year-old wife, Lisa Griffin, both of whom were carrying handguns. Dorian Hatchett, 31, of Lathrup Village was arrested from a separate vehicle. He, too, had a handgun.

    Hackel said the men, who were driving, tell different stories: Hatchett says that Dion Griffin, driving a Dodge Stratus, struck his Nissan Armada SUV. Hatchett gave chase and Griffin opened fire. Hatchett returned firefrom his .357-caliber Glock.

    Griffin, however, says he never struck Hatchett's SUV and that he fired his 9mm gun in self-defense, Hackel said. Griffin was driving his wife and two adult daughters home from a birthday dinner for Lisa Griffin at 2:15 a.m.

    One of the daughters crouched in the back of the car and cried to an Eastpointe police dispatcher after calling 911 that she didn't want to die, police said. Meanwhile, Lisa Griffin made her own panicked 911 call from the front seat.

    Sheriff's Capt. John Roberts said the calls lasted about 10 minutes as the vehicles raced from Van Dyke and I-94 in Detroit to north of 23 Mile in Chesterfield Township. Both vehicles were going more than 100 m.p.h., he said.

    Both men were intoxicated, the sheriff said, with Griffin showing a preliminary blood-alcohol content of .09% to Hatchett's .12%. Lisa Griffin also was intoxicated, at .08%, Hackel said.

    In Michigan, a person with a blood-alcohol content of .08% or higher can be convicted of drunken driving.

    All three have permits to carry a concealed weapon, but it's illegal to do so while drunk, so each faces a 93-day misdemeanor.

    Hatchett and Dion Griffin also are charged with assault with a dangerous weapon and drunken driving. No one was shot, but bullets hit both vehicles.

    All three have been released on bond while awaiting preliminary exams.

  24. #24
    State Researcher Kevin Jensen's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Santaquin, Utah, USA
    Posts
    2,313

    Post imported post

    Impossible. I cannot be wrong. :P

    My computer at work will not play videos, streaming media, flash... So I could not watch it.

    I was only going off of what the story read.

    My bad.
    "An armed society is a polite society. Manners are good when one may have to back up his acts with his life." Robert A. Heinlein

  25. #25
    Campaign Veteran deepdiver's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Southeast, Missouri, USA
    Posts
    5,974

    Post imported post

    Drunk driving and drunk carrying. Obviously pillars of the community. One can't help wondering how the incident and charges would have played out if one of the two men had not been inebriated.


    Bob Owens @ Bearing Arms (paraphrased): "These people aren't against violence; they're very much in favor of violence. They're against armed resistance."

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
  •