• We are now running on a new, and hopefully much-improved, server. In addition we are also on new forum software. Any move entails a lot of technical details and I suspect we will encounter a few issues as the new server goes live. Please be patient with us. It will be worth it! :) Please help by posting all issues here.
  • The forum will be down for about an hour this weekend for maintenance. I apologize for the inconvenience.
  • If you are having trouble seeing the forum then you may need to clear your browser's DNS cache. Click here for instructions on how to do that
  • Please review the Forum Rules frequently as we are constantly trying to improve the forum for our members and visitors.

!!CWL holder kills would be attacker

possumboy

Regular Member
Joined
Jun 14, 2006
Messages
1,089
Location
Dumfries, Virginia, USA
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.
 

casullshooter

Regular Member
Joined
Oct 7, 2006
Messages
490
Location
Bristow, Virginia, USA
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 .
 

HankT

State Researcher
Joined
Feb 20, 2007
Messages
6,215
Location
Invisible Mode
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.
 

DreQo

State Researcher
Joined
Jan 8, 2007
Messages
2,350
Location
Minnesota
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.
 

xpun8

Regular Member
Joined
Mar 22, 2007
Messages
126
Location
Kirkland, Washington, USA
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...
 

duck ninja

Regular Member
Joined
Apr 17, 2007
Messages
15
Location
, ,
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.
 

retrodad

Regular Member
Joined
Jan 16, 2007
Messages
168
Location
Greater Seattle Area
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.
 

NarrowPathPilgrim

Regular Member
Joined
Apr 18, 2007
Messages
19
Location
Post Falls, Idaho, USA
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
 

HankT

State Researcher
Joined
Feb 20, 2007
Messages
6,215
Location
Invisible Mode
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
 

duck ninja

Regular Member
Joined
Apr 17, 2007
Messages
15
Location
, ,
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!!
 

HankT

State Researcher
Joined
Feb 20, 2007
Messages
6,215
Location
Invisible Mode
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.
 

gregma

Regular Member
Joined
Mar 27, 2007
Messages
618
Location
Redmond, Washington, USA
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
 

HankT

State Researcher
Joined
Feb 20, 2007
Messages
6,215
Location
Invisible Mode
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.
 

gregma

Regular Member
Joined
Mar 27, 2007
Messages
618
Location
Redmond, Washington, USA
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/plain...ssf?/base/opinion/1177663300314860.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
 

HankT

State Researcher
Joined
Feb 20, 2007
Messages
6,215
Location
Invisible Mode
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.... :D
 

HankT

State Researcher
Joined
Feb 20, 2007
Messages
6,215
Location
Invisible Mode
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
 
Top