Conceal-carry bullet landed in nearby condo

http://www.stltoday.com/stltoday/news/stories.nsf/News/St.+Louis+City+%2F+County/A24B25A83D04540F86256E5D006494D0?OpenDocument&Headline=Conceal-carry+bullet+landed+in+nearby+condo

Proponents of Missouri's concealed-carry law felt vindicated when a man defended himself March 9 from armed robbers outside his girlfriend's condominium in Lemay by firing his pistol seven times.

Authorities said it was probably Missouri's first case of self-defense with a concealed gun since lawmakers loosened the state's gun laws.

<snip>

But some other neighbors said they are disturbed by other consequences of readily available guns.


Here's why: One of Rutherford's shots pierced a window screen and frame, snapped an aluminum blind and lodged in a down comforter on the guest bed of his girlfriend's neighbor, Nadine Doerr, 79, who was not home.

<snip>

I can't believe that the repugs got the concealed carry law through here. So instead of getting guns out of people's hands, we are putting them in!

:eyes:

Sure, getting robbed sucks, but blasting holes through walls and potentially killing someone is always the best answer. I'd personally rather lose my wallet and have to go through the oh-so laborious tasks of calling up my bank and shutting down my cards and having to go to the DMV to get a new license, and having to buy 6 coffees again to get my '7th coffee free' card refilled at school, and get AAA to send me a new card, and find my box of business cards and put them in a new wallet I'd have to spend precious minutes picking out in Sears, and then I'd have to spend even more time taking the picture holder out because I never did want no perv type spankin to pictures of my SOs.

Come to think of it, maybe putting a bullet through someone's head would be a decent compensation for my time and suffering over a stolen wallet.

More :eyes:

on edit: But I wouldn't move to Florida and shack up with an old buddy and spend all my time on DU complaining about living in his house! :evilgrin:

In D.C., where I fled from, you often don't just get robbed.

Scenario A) You get shot in the back and robbed, you're armed and dead

Scenario B) You get shot in the face and robbed, you're armed and dead

Scenario C) You get stabbed in the back and robbed, you're armed and dead

Scenario D) You get stabbed in the gut and robbed, you shoot back and kill the motherfucker, you're armed and bleeding to death. Huzzah!

You come for my money, I shoot you. I live, you die.

OR you shoot me and I die. Gee, I already HAD that chance before I was armed. I will take armed any day of the week.

One of the big reasons I left DC.

It's already out since I'm robbing you, you pull anything other than a wallet out and I unload into your chest. You're dead, I'm 20 bucks minus bullets and slide oil richer.

That's what you want me to say. Real world doesn't work that way.

In the real world, you don't walk down the street with your gun out in the open and I am not blind to people nearby.

with my gun out all the time? I look just like any other person, only I'm pulling the gun first. Show me something shiny and get blasted, it's pretty simple and pretty real world if you ask me.

Trust me, it doesn't take long to learn how to spot thugs, gangbangers and addicts.

where the robbers had a gun, even if it was a BB gun. Maybe the person you're robbing has their hand in their coat pocket, next to a gun. Or maybe they have their gun in a holster right next to their wallet. Maybe they give you their wallet and shoot you in the back when you try to run off with it. Every situation is different. Having a gun isn't a guarantee that you can rob people at will and get away with it.

I thought all the gun nuts were freepers. :) Just kidding!

That the Constitution gives me.

that the Second Amendment is far too important a civil right to be left to the gun nuts.

How many people with CCWs are killed during robberies each year?

You forgot the most likely scenario. Somebody tries to rob you, you pull out your gun, and the robber(s) run like hell. You're alive. You still have your stuff. The criminals get the shit scared out of them, and not a single round is fired by anybody.

Incidents of a person with a CCW actually shooting somebody are fairly rare. Incidents of people with CCWs being killed are even rarer. According to the NCVS, conducted by the DoJ under Clinton, a person has the least chance of being injured during a robbery if they have a gun, by a large margin. That study found that 1 in 5 people who resist an attack with a gun is injured, 1 in 3 people who offer no resistance to an attack are injured, and 1 in 2 people who resist without a gun are injured. Which odds would you prefer?

Show me this report.

Gary Kleck and Marc Gertz, Armed Resistance to Crime: The Prevalence and Nature of Self-Defense with a Gun, Northwestern University School of Law, Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology, vol. 86, issue 1, 1995.

For example:

Defender's Perceived Likelihood that Someone Would Have Died Had Gun Not Been Used for Protection:

Almost Certainly Not: 20.8%
Probably Not: 19.3%
Might Have: 16.2%
Probably Would Have: 14.2%
Almost Certainly Would Have: 15.7%
Could Not Say: 13.7%

http://www.guncite.com/kleck3ab.html

So even by this report's numbers, the presence of a gun was ineffective more times than not in the 1% of crimes that are committed based on a survey of 4000 +/- people out of a population of 280,000,000.

when asked about the possibility of his wife being a crime victim, state : "If that were my wife , would I want her to have a .38 Special in her hand? Yeah" ?

It couldn't be that even some prominent anti-gunners realize the practical uses for guns?

I guess Sarah Brady buying that high-powered sniper rifle for her son is just pro-gun propaganda?

However, if he's got a long enough trench coat, and is willing to do the James Woods walk in "The Onion Fields" then by all means, let him pack a 'sniper rifle'.

is a weapon used in an assault?

Long range accuracy with a relatively slow rate of fire, a rare and very expensive exception being the HK-PSG1 with can fire semi-auto.

Assault weapons are generally shorter, lighter, and intended to put as many rounds downrange in the shortest time possible.

Just like a steak knife can be used as a hunting weapon, it's not it's intended purpose.

If I go hunting deer with a semi-auto Siaga with a 5 round magazine, which is based on an AK-47, is that still an assault weapon?

What's the difference between an AK-derivative with a 5 round detachable magazine and a "hunting" semi-automatic with a 5 round detachable magazine? They both have identical capabilities and firepower.

But now you've shifted the argument from handguns to assault weapons through a strawman weapons classification argument.

not a strawman. If you don't want to talk about this, you don't have to. If you want to keep on topic, you can post on-topic. That's the great thing about this board. ;)

BTW, a Siaga isn't technically an assault weapon under the 1994 ban, since it doesn't have a bayonet lug or a pistol grip.

US Department of Justice
Office of Justice Programs
Bureau of Justice Statistics

Crime Data Brief
Handgun Victimization, Firearm Self-Defense, and Firearm Theft
Guns and Crime
April, 1994, NCJ-147003

The author is Michael R Rand, BJS Statistician.

That's the full cite. You should be able to find this report at any library that is designated a US Government document repository.

You are being robbed and go for your gun. The guy robbing you shoots you in a bizarro case of self-defense. Then he grabs your wallet AND your gun (prying it from your cold dead hands). The End.
Actually, this has happened many times recently to off-duty cops (and on-duty cops), and I think an FBI guy and a woman law enforcement officer of some kind. I read once that something like 40% of police officers killed in the line of duty are killed with their own weapon. So much for the twisted notion that the criminals are cowering in a dark room somewhere because they're just not sure who's armed and who's not.
Even if you are armed, if someone has a gun pointed at you, you will NOT get the drop on them I don't care what Ted Nugent says (so stop saying that).

Of course, Cops never get killed because their guns are displayed prominently :eyes:

How many regular people were killed last year?

Would you try to rob a cop bar?

I don't have the real numbers handy.

Trying to rob a cop bar or not is irrelevant.

After all, if robbers are not intimidated by guns, cop bars should get robbed at the same rate as other bars get robbed, right?

This is about muggings.

What is the ratio of bars vs cop bars being robbed?

but EVERY case of a cop bar being robbed I've heard about was in the press as a "stupid criminal trick" article...and they generally get national attention.

For instance, one of the national "criminals do the dumbest things" shows had video taken at a gun show, where some criminals tried to rob it. The surveillance camera showed the car pull up, the criminal get out, run into the building, and almost instantaneously run back out, as soon as he realized that EVERYBODY inside had a gun.

not the norm

because they're filled with people with guns. Regular robberies are NOT nationally publicized, because they ARE the norm. Same deal with donut shops.

I've used my gun several times for self defense, against both armed and unarmed attackers. I've never been shot. Strange how that works...

I've "been there, done that". Have you? Since you haven't, what do you base your statements upon?

And cops are required by law to have far more contact with an aggressor than regular citizens are, which explains how and why criminals get access to the guns of cops. Cops can't just shoot an unarmed assailant. Citizens generally can, if they're reasonably in fear for their lives or safety. Refusing to wrestle with an assailant generally prevents the assailant from getting your gun.

means I actually removed it from it's holster, and made it obvious that I was armed.

There have been a couple of times I've actually had to aim it and take up the trigger slack to defuse the situation.

One case involved "being yoked" in the parking lot of a local mall. A group of teens came up and aggressively demanded money from my wife and I, threatening us verbally. I pulled my Glock 19, and she pulled her Combat Commander, a few words were exchanged, and they all left.

Another case many moons ago (1986) involved an attempted robbery while I was working retail. I was managing a video store, where the policy was to do a "night drop" of the receipts at the bank after closing. There were two robbers, one of whom had what appeared to be a gun. I pulled my gun, words were exchanged, and they left.

Please edit down to four paragraphs for copyright reasons.

Thanks! Good article.

I'm about as leftist as they come, and I don't support gun control.

I don't know anyone who thinks people should be carrying guns around. I just think that the NRA has brow beat a lot of politicians, with all their money. I am sure that 90 some percent of these gun people are the NASCAR/bible thumper types who Democrats aren't going to get anyway.

who think people should be carrying guns around if they want to.

I don't see what the NRA has to do with anything. They have nothing to do with support for concealed carry laws in most if not all of the states that have gotten them. Come to think of it, I don't even know if the NRA supports concealed carry.


"I am sure that 90 some percent of these gun people are the NASCAR/bible thumper types who Democrats aren't going to get anyway."

Well that's nice, but you're wrong. Actually, I take that back. You're right. The Democratic party, at the national level at least, isn't going to become more pro-gun anytime soon, so they probably aren't going to get a lot of those pro-gun voters.

I just can't imagine that voters who vote on that issue are going to be very reliable Democratic voters. I think Bush* probably has a lock on the guys at the NASCAR races drinking cheap beer with their shirts off, exposing their pot bellies. Maybe I'm wrong though.

of people who have given up bothering to vote. Look at their choices: Gun grabbing Democrats or gun grabbing Republicans. What's the point?

I agree, anyone far enough gone to believe that Bush is pro-gun in any way has no hope of voting for anyone but a Republican.

Come on though, not everyone who watches NASCAR and drinks cheap beer and a has a pot belly is a Republican. I try to keep my shirt on, though.

I don't mean to offend w/NASCAR/cheap beer comments, but I think (don't know) that if you looked at that demographic, and overlayed with the election map from 2000, there would probably be a good correlation. Just my opinion.

about it being a majority of NASCAR fans that are Republican. I don't think it's 90 percent though. But the number of voters and potential voters that vote based on the gun issue is a separate issue. Maybe those Republican voting NASCAR fans own guns, but there are way more gun owners than there are NASCAR fans.

Besides, no one with any sense votes for a Republican on the gun issue. The Republicans have passed more gun control than the Democrats by far in the last 25 years.

I don't really watch NASCAR anymore, they lost me with their constant rule changes. I still like my beer cheap, though, and I still try to keep my shirt on.

I not trying to knock NASCAR at all. It is just like anything else, there is a certain demographic profile to it. Not that everyone fits that profile. Nothing wrong with drinking cheap beer, though. Unless you can sucker some guy into buying, then you have to go for the expensive stuff.

:beer:

I'm just saying that there are way more gun owners and therefor potential single issue gun voters than there are NASCAR watchers.

These voters and potential voters aren't tied to any particular party. They've been screwed by Republicans constantly over the last 25 years. If a Democrat came along that promised real change and they believed he would follow through with it, that Democrat could stand to pick up a lot of votes.

Then I'm not disagreeing either. I just hope Democrats don't do what you say, because more important than votes to me is not having a bunch of people running around with guns. Ok, I guess we disagree on that.

no matter what party wins the elections, since neither party is particularly friendly to gun owners.

the people who won't be shot by all those guns on the street?

I mean the people who won't be able to defend themselves from all those guns on the street that bad guys will always have.

should be carrying a gun. They need to clean up the streets. If they started collecting them all now, in 10 years there would be few left.

They banned cocaine and pot long ago, and it's all over the streets.

Prohibition NEVER works.

Just like how Prohibition cleaned up all the alcohol "on the streets." Oh, and just like how the War on Drugs has cleaned up all the drugs "on the streets" too right?

Give it a thought before you advocate such dangerous legislation.

There is some innate desire for these things. What pleasure does a gun give? Also we banned child labor, and that prohibition seems to have worked.

for stress relief.

Don't they have shooting clubs or something over there where you can go shoot, but the gun stays at the club?

they banned handguns and most long guns. Since doing this, their handgun crime rate has gone up considerably, despite the fact that all legal handguns had to be surrendered to the police and destroyed. It's still not at US levels, but criminals are still getting all the guns they want, and they now have a guaranteed unarmed civilian population to terrorize. Their associated crime rates (especially for home invasions) have also gone up a fair bit.

and people are going to be shot by them. People who obey laws that tell them they can't carry weapons to defend themselves don't often go around shooting people. People who have no problem shooting someone over the money in their wallet or over territory for selling drugs probably don't care about whatever laws prevent the more law abiding from carrying weapons. Kind of like they don't care about the laws against murdering and robbing people.

No offense meant, but seriously- that just seems like contempt for regular working class people.

Nope. I don't make much money myself, so that would mean I have contempt for me. Which I don't. :crazy:

Point taken. I do understand your point, I just don't agree. I don't think guns are necessarly a Democrat/Republican issue.

I think it is and it isn't. I think it isn't because it is more of a urban/rural issue. But that makes it somewaht more of a Repuke/Demcratic issue. (See electoral map from 2000).

Disclaimer: That is just my opinion. Also, St. Louis is not like a "real" city (NYC/SF/Chicago), but is a close enough approximation when compared to downstate MO.

besides the ones having to do with money.

Your contempt for the people you describe comes through loud and clear.

to the Union people. They're supposed to be a core constituency of ours. They also tend to be very pro-gun.

I can't imagine faced with the choice between quality healthcare/fair trade/education and a gun that people would worry about carrying a gun. That's what makes politics interesting!

Personal safety is often a high-profile issue with people.

What's the point of having a good union job, a great education, and good healthcare if some crackhead breaks into your house and kills you and your family because you're unarmed?

But it seems to me most people who are pro-gun live in lower crime areas (often more rural). Those of us who live nearer to urban areas are more opposed. These areas tend to have higher crime rates. Not that I know your situation.

but I started carrying when I lived in highly urbanized areas with nation-leading per capita homicide statistics.

BTW, people living in urban areas have a much higher NEED for effective self-defense than people living in rural settings, since there's more chance of being victimized there.

There is just a lot of poverty that needs to be addressed, then nobody would need to carry a gun.

but lots of crime involving guns don't involve poor people, they involve criminals, killing over things like drug market share.

It's poor people who are buying the drugs, though. They don't have a lot of hope so they resort to that.

Poor areas have always had a drug problem. The war on drugs got started when drug use became a middle and upper class problem.

I have a hard time describing somebody with a $500 a day drug habit as being "poor"...and drug use crosses ALL socio-economic boundaries.

http://www.lincolnsnacks.com/Poppycock/poppycock.htm
That stuff is good.

Well, when you have a drug addiction, and you don't have the money to cover the cost, that makes you poor (and likely to commit crimes to pay for it). If you aren't some sort of CEO or something, you probably are going to commit a more violent crime. I believe in solving the root causes. Probably makes me a liberal.

shouldn't be criminals?

they are obviously violating drug laws. Beyond that, they will probably have some incident with the law. Their priviledged status will probably get them treatment instead of jail. I assume by "yuppies" you mean "white" (are there any yuppies anymore?). A minority will probably get thrown into jail, and start their downward spiral into crime (i.e. a record + drug addiction = no good).

I meant young urban professionals. Race is irrelevant in this context.

Now if you want to get into race, we can, especially the racist aspects of the WoD, such as the disparity in sentencing between "powder" and "rock" cocaine. That, however, is a whole 'nother kettle of fish, and would deserve it's own thread.

I just view the gun issue similar to the way we treat foreign policy. In the 80's we wasted so much money on weapons in a crazy arms race with the Russians. If we would have tried to resolve our basic differences instead, we could have reinvested that money in things to help people. Similarly, I don't want to see everyone in society armed to the teeth. I think we need to address why people feel insecure instead. Just my opinion.

is the idea that a raped woman, dead in an alley after being strangled with her own panty hose by her attacker, is somehow morally superior to that same woman, standing in that same alley, explaining to the police how her attacker came to have two bullets in his chest.

It's well and good (and should be done) to work on the root causes of crime. It's unrealistic to think that we can end crime. As long as people still are at risk of being victimized, they need the tools necessary to prevent themselves from becoming victims. The best way to do this is is for law-abiding people to have a gun and know how to use it.

It's like the Pink Pistols say: "Armed Gays don't get bashed."

so we are much better off without them. I mean, what would people think? :eyes:

I'm one of them. My wife also has a CCW.

I'm an Agnostic that's never been to a NASCAR event. Same with my wife, but she's also AFL-CIO. Her father and brother are both IBEW, and both have CCWs, and they aren't NASCAR fans.

If you know many blue-collar union folks, odds are excellent that some of them have CCWs and carry guns regularly. We just don't publicize it.

I guess I just don't understand the attraction that some people (mostly men) have to guns. I remember the one Simpsons episode where Homer gets a gun and uses it to open cans, etc.

the same way I treat my cellphone. I hope I don't need it, but I carry it with me every day, just in case. I use my cellphone more, though. When I come home, I set my cellphone on it's charger on the bar, next to my holstered sidearm, my wallet, and my car keys. I clean it once a month, which takes around 20 minutes.

"you never need a gun until you need it really badly."

Yeah, but your cell phone is not a danger to those around you. Unless, you happen to be a drunk dialer. Then the wife/girlfriend might be in trouble. :wow:

How many car crashes are caused by people ignoring the road to deal with their cellphones? Cars kill far more people than guns....and cellphone use can be a contributing factor in car wrecks that kill.

will you pry my cellphone. Sure cars kill more people than guns, but they are more useful too. Although, less SUVs and more public transport would be good too.

If you need to go 25 miles, a car is far more useful than a gun. If you're being robbed or raped, a gun is far more useful than a car. If you're being carjacked, a gun is more useful than a car.

the cellphone would be more useful than the gun. Although the darn thing is too small to do much damage. :(

Both my wife and I are competent markspeople, so guns in our hands are far more effective than cellphones.

Given a choice of only one or the other, I'd take the gun. That's not the case, so I carry both. Hell, I even have a fire extinguisher in my car trunk, along with road flares. "Be Prepared" is more than just the Boy Scout motto....

Seeking votes over other Dems.

caused by his stray bullets.


"I do not blame that man for fighting for his own life," Doerr said last week. "He had the right to defend himself. But I don't think he needed seven shots."

I don't know. Better hit to miss ratio than a lot of police shootings you hear about.

And it turned out that Rutherford's life was never really in peril. Police said the robbers were armed with a BB gun.

How is this relevant? Was Rutherford supposed to wait to be shot before defending himself? If the police shot someone who pointed a BB gun at them, would people be questioning that?

"If Rutherford felt threatened, she said, "he should have headed right for the fire station right up the street.""

Right, since he was already out of his truck, he should have gotten in and drove away or maybe just taken off running from the guy with a gun. And where should he run? To the firehouse, full of unarmed firefighters. Oh, wait, they probably have axes. :eyes:

And he wasn't even armed. But he was Black and that was excuse enough.

Something about the FBI and Miami and 1986 also came to mind.

Reminds me of the time when, at my friends trailer park, a neighbor cleaned his 30.06 without bothering to check if it was loaded. My friend had bullet holes clean through his trailer (along with 6 others). Good thing it didn't hit anyone, the guy would have been charged with manslaughter.

This guy should be charged with reckless endangerment, and have the permit revoked. Nothing to do with protection or gun rights, just stupidity. You have to take into account the enviroment you are in, these condos walls are not bulletproof. Pull the gun when needed, shoot only when needed. And watch where you point the damned thing, OMG!

Other than this guys aim, where is the problem? He was being robbed at gunpoint? What is the problem with his using a gun in self defense?

He didn't think before shooting, that is the problem. He could have put others in danger, and that is a problem. I don't care about the CCW or guns rights to much, but I prefer intelligence to be implemented by users of guns. He was reckless, that much is plain. Given the worse case senario, that he accidently killed someone innocent, simply because of bad aim, is that an excuse?

if someone had been killed with a stray bullet the muggers would have been the ones charged with murder. Charges for the shooter would depend on the situation.

I'm not ready to say he was reckless just because a stray bullet ended up in someone's house. I don't think there's enough information available to us to make that judgment. I'd like to see a diagram of the neighborhood and trajectories and that sort of thing. The kind of evidence you'd see in the court room, which is probably where it would end up if someone had been killed by a stray bullet.

<snip>
Rutherford had little margin for error for shooting in the center of a densely packed condominium complex. He was surrounded by condo buildings. From his position, any shot that didn't go into the sky, ground or his target would have hit a building or car.
<snip>

and also:
<snip>
Bob Wilkins, the prosecuting attorney in Jefferson County, said people who shoot in self-defense still might face criminal charges if they put the public at risk. That's something people might not realize about the new concealed-carry law, he said.
<snip>

I am not saying that if he shot somebody by accident that he should be charged, unless he was reckless or negligent. However I do believe that he should compensate the woman whose window and mattress were damaged.

for a "necessity" defense.

if she rents, and the would most likely win. If he can't demonstrate that if he didn't fire that he would have died, then there are grounds for that.

have died if he didn't fire, only that he was in fear for his life when he fired.

It would be hard to prove however.

He was confronted by several people, one of whom had what appeared to be a gun. It's a "reasonable person" standard. Would a reasonable person, confronted with that exact same situation, think they were in danger? If so, it's justified.

If you're paranoid, and a Hare Krishna comes up to you and gives you a flower, so you shoot him because you're afraid he's going to kill you, that's unreasonable to a normal person. But confronted by three people at night with a gun, that's a lot more reasonable. In fact, it's unreasonable to NOT be afraid in such a situation.

If several armed robbers had guns aimed at him when he was aware they were going to rob him. I would think he would surrender his wallet, concealed weapon or not. What was the timeline? Did he see them approach and pulled his gun first, did they pull theirs first? Those are all situations that are possible in this case, and crucial too, its the difference between self-defense and murder.

from the article is that he was confronted by two men who robbed him. He gave them his wallet. They then demanded more stuff from his trunk, at which point he pulled his gun and started shooting. We know that they DID in fact have what appeared to be a gun, since the police recovered it. We also know that the prosecuting attorney reviewed the situation and felt that the shooting was legally justified, since he's not pressing charges.

Given those facts as reported in the article, I have a very hard time conceiving that it was an inappropriate response on the victim's part.

as police or armed SO's? That is the question, and the problem.

If you mean the standard for the use of lethal force, it's identical. In both cases, there must be a reasonable fear for life or of greivous bodily harm. If you mean the standard for the use of nonlethal force to apprehend a suspect, it's different. Cops have a duty to pursue and apprehend, while civilians do not. If you mean the standard to use force to prevent an attack in self-defense, it's the same. In both cases, you can't use more force than is necessary, necessity being defined by the weapons and tactics being used by the attacker.

I have a fair bit of knowledge and experience on this issue, at least in my home state. Before going to Law School in the 1990's, I worked in law enforcement, and have been involved in both the training of LEOs and private citizens. I'm certified to train people in the manner perscribed by law to get a CCW permit, and the courts have recognized my expertise on this, so that I can testify in my home state as an expert on this issue. If you've got specific questions, please ask them.

DNR

I was an Armed Security Guard, and we are held to the same standard as Police in the use of force. It is a grey area, but one you better be sure of, or you could land in a whole lot of trouble. I do have a question, how often do CCW permit holders have to renew their permits, and are the standards the same as Law Officers?

Here, it's a 5 year permit. Other states vary, from 2-5 years on average. Police officers have to qualify with their service weapons at least annually in most cases (this varies by department, and isn't codified, but is a matter of departmental resources and policy). The average standard around here is 50 rounds a year for training per regular police officer. SWATties practice considerably more. CCW permit holders are generally not required to qualify annually.

From what I've seen, most CCW permit holders practice with far more frequency, expending far more rounds per session, than the police do. That's anecdotal, however.

It's interesting to note that most shooting tournaments that are open to both police and civilians but not to the military tend to be won by two categories of people: Civilians and DoE employees. This includes subgun competitions. Kind of makes you wonder.... ;-)

to recklessness. Just because it was a densely packed condo complex does that mean Rutherford surrenders his right to defend himself? I'm not saying he wasn't reckless, either, although I admit I'm leaning toward not reckless, I'd just like more evidence before making the call.

is whether the robber, seeing the gun, tried to continue the robbery. If he attempted to surrender, or tried to run away, then there are grounds for murder. This is true for police and armed security officers too. I should know, I was trained by St. Louis Police Dept. you are not to use more force than is absolutely necessary to deter or prevent a crime against life or property. That is something that we were hammered with day in and day out. Usually, all you need to do is draw the gun and aim it at the perp and that is all that is needed. The decision to fire that weapon is your sole responsibility, and YOU are responsible for your actions at that point.

one of the robbers had a gun. Should Mr. Rutherford have waited to be shot before firing at them? Granted, most situations don't require someone to actually fire the gun in order to use it to defend themselves, but waiting to see if the robber is going to continue the robbery once he already has a gun pointed at you seems like a bad time to pull a gun and wait to see what happens.

First off, no he didn't have to wait for the robber to shoot, I question whether the robber had the advantage. If the robber had the weapon aimed at him, and he still was able to pull his weapon on the robber, how did he not get shot? We do not know who was aiming at who, if the robber had his gun pulled on him first, and threatened to shoot then I would agree. However if he said that he intends to rob you, and did not have the weapon out, and Mr. Rutherford had his gun aimed on him, then what need did he have to shoot the robber? We don't know, I say let the courts decide.

there's no way in hell the shooting would get past a grand jury, much less get to court.

What we do know is basically a big question mark. We do not know the situation that led up to the shooting, and until we do, I say leave it up to the courts.

It doesn't look like Rutherford is going to be charged, according to the article.

please reread the article. It states that the victim was robbed before pulling his gun, that there were two people doing the robbing (and a third person was also arrested), that the police recovered a BB gun from the robbers, and that the prosecuting attorney (an Officer of the Court, BTW) refused to press charges because it was justified.

The Prosecuting Attorney serves as a gatekeeper to the court system. If the shooting was unjustified, it's his job to bring charges and take the guy to court. He refuses to do this, saying the shooting was justified. This is a large part of his job, which he did.

Given these facts as contained in the article, why would it need to go to trial? Prosecuting Attorneys are not known for refusing to bring charges, unless there's no doubt that the action was legal. If there was even a question of the legality, SOP in most places is to bring charges, and try to get a plea bargain, or to submit it to the Grand Jury for their consideration.

That is the discretion of the DA. However the article only covers the situation in general terms. We do not know, for example, whether the 2 robbers pulled a gun during the robbery. I could only imagine the chaos that will be the civil cases however, the woman whose condo was damaged may sue the shooter, and the robbers for damage. The robber or his family will probably sue Mr. Rutherford as well. Actually, I feel sorry for him, he may be tied up in civil court for awhile.

total damages are relatively minor, and would be handled in the courts not of record due to the amount.

As for the robbers suing him, that's not going to happen. Their contributory actions are too large to get past a motion for summary judgment put forth by the defendant.

the robber has the advantage? The whole point is to not give your assailant the advantage.

"If the robber had the weapon aimed at him, and he still was able to pull his weapon on the robber, how did he not get shot?"

As the anti-concealed carry gun grabbers are so fond of pointing out, having a gun isn't a guarantee that you aren't going to get shot. I guess that includes people who are robbing people with guns. Maybe the robber just didn't want to shoot anyone. Maybe he was more concerned with not getting shot than with shooting back.

"However if he said that he intends to rob you, and did not have the weapon out, and Mr. Rutherford had his gun aimed on him, then what need did he have to shoot the robber?"

That's irrelevant. Person being robbed, robber has gun, robber gets shot. If this robber was robbing someone unarmed, and the person being robbed pulls a gun, I think pretty much the dumbest thing the robber could do is to then decide to pull a weapon.

That when CCW was on the ballot in Missouri, it lost. The NRA flooded Jefferson City with cash and the state legislature passed a bill that THE PEOPLE had already rejected.

Just like we rejected John Ashcroft in 2000, and he's again shoved down our throats!

Once again, to Republicans, ballots don't count. Money does. That's why we have CCW.

might be to say that voters in 104 of 114 counties wanted concealed carry, but St. Louis and Kansas City didn't. All with 30% voter turnout as I understand it.

So, I guess that since four years ago around 15% of eligible voters decided that they didn't want concealed carry, the issue can never be revisited? That's an interesting way of looking at things.

Are there any other civil rights you'd like to put up to public vote?

Do you honestly consider carrying a handgun around in your jacket to be a 'civil right'? Are you really serious?

The population centers of Missouri happen to be Kansas City and St. Louis, so the number of counties really doesn't impress me. The Republicans often do this when showing a map of the red states, but fail to mention how sparsely populated these areas are. The urban centers deserved to be heard on this issue, since it impacts us the most. But the Southern Missourians again canceled out our votes.

If this was to be 'revisited', as you say, it should be on another ballot initiative and not by palms greased by the NRA in Jefferson City. I happen to think that democracy is also a 'civil right'.

Although I wouldn't carry a handgun in my jacket. If I owned a handgun and carried it, I'd probably go with an inside the waistband holster.

Obviously the 104 counties that voted for concealed carry in the referendum are sparsely populated than the 10 that voted for it. How else would they be outvoted?

Can we go a thread, maybe, without going on about the NRA? There are other pro-gun groups, you know. There were other, local groups, that were more involved in fighting for concealed carry in Missouri. These guys here for example: http://www.moccw.org/ They have one of those maps you like: http://www.moccw.org/votegraphic.html Here it is in table form: http://www.moccw.org/propbvote.html

You never answered my question: Are there any other civil rights you'd like to put up for public vote?

Here's your answer: I don't consider carrying a handgun on your person to be a 'civil right', so your premise doesn't apply.

I think I have a 'civil right' not to have beered-up hillbillies lurching around town packing concealed weapons and possibly jeopardizing MY safety.

Thank you for admitting that allll those counties were outvoted. They were. But again, votes don't matter, I suppose. Nope, boys gotta have their guns. It's a 'civil right'. Uh-huh.

isn't limited to men. Permits are available to anyone over 21 who meets all of the requirements and takes the necessary classes. Here's a link: http://www.moga.state.mo.us/statutes/C500-599/5710000090.HTM

How does allowing people to get a permit to carry a concealed weapon increase the likelihood that "beered-up hillbillies" will be "lurching around town packing concealed weapons"? What was stopping them before the new law was passed?

So, if say a bunch of people got a national referendum on a hot button issue like abortion, you'd be alright with that? I mean, the people working to get that referendum probably don't consider abortion a civil right, so that makes it OK.

I'm sure that just loads of women are applying for CCW permits.

You know as well as I do that now that carrying a concealed weapon is legal in Missouri, despite the vote of the people, will increase the number of individuals carrying a weapon. The vast majority of them will be of the hillbilly variety. Ergo, my scenario of the beered-up hillbillies lurching around town, a drunken menace that the rest of the population will now have to worry about along with the criminals.

Again, I reject your specious argument that carrying a loaded weapon on your person is a 'civil right', so the abortion example is a non-starter. You simply refuse to accept the fact that your precious law was voted down by the majority of people in Missouri, and that the democratic process was subverted by the gun lobby.

That there are loads of women applying for carry permits.

I'm not denying that being able to get a permit will increase the numbers of people that carry concealed weapons. I disagree that the vast majority of them will be "hillbillies," "beered-up" or otherwise.

My whole point is that the people you need to worry about with guns are going to carry them regardless of the law because people who are going to commit crimes like robbery, rape, and murder, not to mention randomly shooting guns at whatever in a city, probably aren't too concerned with breaking a law saying they can't carry the gun they use to commit their crimes concealed.

My abortion example is not a specious argument. It is perfectly valid. The people who want to ban abortion don't think that it is a civil right. By your own reasoning this is reason enough for them to put it up for a referendum and have it banned.

It's not my precious law, either. I'm not a citizen of Missouri. I also don't support permit requirements for people to exercise their rights. I guess having the permit process there is better than nothing, though, for people who want to carry concealed.

I don't see how the democratic process was subverted. The people elected the representatives that passed the law. Democracy in action.

So, by your definition of 'democracy in action', we should suspend the 2004 election and allow the Republican-controlled House and Senate to choose our next president. They are, of course, elected representatives and by choosing the president they'll be expressing the voice of the people.

If you aren't a resident of Missouri, I invite you to visit and we'll cruise around 7-11 parking lots (otherwise known as 'nightclubs') and we'll quiz some of our friends in their pickups swilling beers to see how many have applied for CCW permits, and how many are drinking with a loaded gun on their person. I'm sure you'll be pleasantly surprised to find out how many of them are armed and how easily a six-pack can trigger aggression.

If this sounds elitist, then please take me up on my offer and you'll discover some unpleasant and brutal facts. Not every gun-toter is a reasonable citizen. Gun-toting itself attracts some very insecure and unstable individuals. And now we're at their mercy (and I use the word 'mercy' lightly).

Since you continue to bring up the abortion issue, I think you'd find such a referendum would pass overwhelmingly in favor of choice. The CCW issue, as we know, has not.

but laws are passed by legislatures that are elected by the people.

"If you aren't a resident of Missouri, I invite you to visit and we'll cruise around 7-11 parking lots (otherwise known as 'nightclubs') and we'll quiz some of our friends in their pickups swilling beers to see how many have applied for CCW permits, and how many are drinking with a loaded gun on their person. I'm sure you'll be pleasantly surprised to find out how many of them are armed and how easily a six-pack can trigger aggression."

I'd be happy to come to Missouri to cruise around 7-11 parking lots with you, if you're paying. The rest of this sounds like the standard blood in the streets argument, which I think you will find hasn't come to pass anywhere else concealed carry has passed.

"If this sounds elitist, then please take me up on my offer and you'll discover some unpleasant and brutal facts. Not every gun-toter is a reasonable citizen. Gun-toting itself attracts some very insecure and unstable individuals. And now we're at their mercy (and I use the word 'mercy' lightly)."

I have never claimed that every gun-toter is a reasonable person. I have repeatedly made the claim that people who are going to go around stealing, raping, and murdering aren't suddenly going to go out and get permits to carry their guns. It makes sense to me. The whole point of having carry permits is to give people who follow the laws a chance to carry a gun to defend themselves. So really, if you think about it, you're less at the mercy of these insecure and unstable individuals than you were before the permits were available.


"Since you continue to bring up the abortion issue, I think you'd find such a referendum would pass overwhelmingly in favor of choice. The CCW issue, as we know, has not."

I'm sorry you don't see the connection between people denying that carrying a concealed weapon is a civil right and people denying that abortion is a civil right. I'll have to take your word that a referendum on abortion would pass overwhelmingly in favor of choice. But what if it didn't? That's the whole point. You don't put civil rights up for a majority vote.

I have repeatedly made the claim that people who are going to go around stealing, raping, and murdering aren't suddenly going to go out and get permits to carry their guns. It makes sense to me. The whole point of having carry permits is to give people who follow the laws a chance to carry a gun to defend themselves. So really, if you think about it, you're less at the mercy of these insecure and unstable individuals than you were before the permits were available.

The individuals I've cited aren't criminals...yet. And I'm certainly at the mercy of the insecure and unstable newly minted gun-toters who are legally carrying weapons. If this is the 'blood in the streets' argument you reject, all I can say is, give it time.

I never claimed that thieves, rapists and killers are going to go out and apply for CCW. It's the 'law abiding' hotheads that abound here that are going to apply, and I certainly don't want MY life in THEIR hands.

I'm a woman and even in this crime-ridden city I don't feel the need to pack heat every time I leave my house. I don't live in fear.

in other states, years. Decades in some cases. Still no blood in the streets from concealed carry permits.

"It's the 'law abiding' hotheads that abound here that are going to apply, and I certainly don't want MY life in THEIR hands."
I hate to break it to you, but otherwise law abiding hotheads can be dangerous regardless of whether or not they're carrying a concealed weapon. You could be run down with a car or beaten to death with a tire iron or fists. There are some dangerous people out there. All the more reason to carry a weapon to defend yourself if you so desire. Now the law abiding can.


"I'm a woman and even in this crime-ridden city I don't feel the need to pack heat every time I leave my house. I don't live in fear."

That's nice, but some people do feel the need to carry a weapon for self defense regardless of whether or not they "live in fear."

then they're criminals. It's illegal to be drunk in public. It's illegal to be drunk and armed. And it's illegal to be drunk and driving.

She's got a masters in Psych, I've got a Doctorate. Does that mean we're beered up hillbillies?

the right to vote.

If the right to effective self defense against an attacker is NOT a civil right, what on earth WOULD be?

and you are 100% correct.