Malfunction 0 #1 May 7, 2004 Chicago, ILL. Appearantly someone just couldn't stand a CUBS fan. There is a post about Gun-proofing kids, but maybe we should gun-proof idiots that think guns are cool. http://www.suntimes.com/output/news/cst-nws-cubby07.html I may disagree with what you have to say, but I shall defend to the death your right to say it. - Voltaire Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
JohnRich 4 #2 May 7, 2004 QuoteHernandez, 26, was crossing Clark Street about 6 p.m. when a Chevy Suburban cut him off and he hit the side of the sport-utility vehicle with the bat, a police official said. The driver of the SUV got out and tried to attack Hernandez, who then broke the souvenir bat over the driver's head, the police official said. A passenger in the SUV got out with a handgun and shot Hernandez in the upper abdomen, police and witnesses said. Ah yes, the fine city of Chicago, where handgun ownership is banned completely. How could this happen? They're not supposed to have handguns! It sounds like the guy with the baseball bat was an idiot too. And since no charges were filed, it could be that it will be ruled justifiable self-defense, for coming to the aid of his friend who had a bat cracked over his head. Ban souvenir bats! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
markd_nscr986 0 #3 May 7, 2004 This is too good to pass up.....but I have work to do,I will weigh in later........but.... Teddy Kennedy has killed more people with his car (1) than I have with any of my cool handguns (0)Marc SCR 6046 SCS 3004 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mr2mk1g 10 #4 May 7, 2004 so you don't blame the guy with the bat for this?? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Malfunction 0 #5 May 7, 2004 Have you ever seen a souvenier bat? It is about 6-12 inches, and will hardly kill someone. You couldn't hit a nail with that bat and not break it. I blame the guy that pulled a gun and shot another person in broad daylight in view of police officers and in a high populated area. I am not against the second ammendment, mind you. I am against idiots that do this kind of thing. Malicious Intent, ever heard of it? And the guy DRIVING the suburban was supposed to yield to the pedestrian to begin with... so no, I don't blame the guy with the 6-12 inch souvenier bat. And there were no charges filed because the guy is dead. Dead men don't file charges. The other men are already in police custody with noone to press charges against... the 'violator' is dead. HELLO!?! I may disagree with what you have to say, but I shall defend to the death your right to say it. - Voltaire Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
JohnRich 4 #6 May 7, 2004 Quotethe guy DRIVING the suburban was supposed to yield to the pedestrian to begin with... so no, I don't blame the guy with the 6-12 inch souvenier bat. That doesn't give him the right to whack the car with his toy bat. QuoteAnd there were no charges filed because the guy is dead. Dead men don't file charges. The other men are already in police custody with noone to press charges against... the 'violator' is dead. HELLO!?! I was referring to charges against the *shooter*. Apparently he was taken into custody, but no charges have been filed yet. That surprises me, since two policemen witnessed the event. Maybe they think it qualifies as justifiable self defense? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Malfunction 0 #7 May 7, 2004 Quote -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- In Reply To -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- And there were no charges filed because the guy is dead. Dead men don't file charges. The other men are already in police custody with noone to press charges against... the 'violator' is dead. HELLO!?! -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- I was referring to charges against the *shooter*. Apparently he was taken into custody, but no charges have been filed yet. That surprises me, since two policemen witnessed the event. Maybe they think it qualifies as justifiable self defense? Who is going to file charges agains the shooter? The guy that got shot? He is dead. The police? They were not involved in the incident, therefore they can not file charges. The only one that can is the State Of Illinios, in which case the courts have to see the evidence in order to press the charges... and we all know how long the justice system takes. Justifiable Self Defense? Unless the victim (dead guy) physically pulled the driver from the vehicle and started whacking uncontrollably, I doubt it is justifiable self defense ... especially when it was a BYSTANDER that pulled the gun and shot the guy, not the driver. I may disagree with what you have to say, but I shall defend to the death your right to say it. - Voltaire Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kelpdiver 2 #8 May 7, 2004 This is exactly the situation that gun controllers present to oppose CCW permits. We can be thankful they are rare. Aside from the illegal possession, it was clearly outside the bounds of self defense. While there is something to 'don't bring a souvenoir bat to a gun fight,' the shooter skipped a few steps on the escalation ladder. I'll grant the SunTimes can't be trusted to accurately protray gun incidents, but at the very least, the shooter should have given a verbal warning. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
SkyDekker 1,465 #9 May 7, 2004 QuoteAnd since no charges were filed, it could be that it will be ruled justifiable self-defense, Of course, it is perfectly understandable and ok that after a guy hits you with a toy baseball bat you shoot and kill him. I think this situation would have been much better if everybody around this fight would have had a gun on them as well. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
JohnRich 4 #10 May 7, 2004 QuoteI doubt it is justifiable self defense ... especially when it was a BYSTANDER that pulled the gun and shot the guy, not the driver. The news story said the shooter was a passenger in the driver's vehicle. So, his buddy was being beaten with a wooden bat, and he came to his aid. It can be justifiable for a third party to use deadly force for self-defense on behalf of another. I agree that he may have overreacted, but that's hard to say, because we don't know all the facts. Was the driver knocked unconscious by the blow with the bat? Did the attacker continue to beat him after he went down? I don't know. The details could determine which way this incident goes. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
JohnRich 4 #11 May 7, 2004 QuoteThis is exactly the situation that gun controllers present to oppose CCW permits. Except that this one wouldn't apply, because all handgun ownership is banned in Chicago, so this gun owner was already a law-breaker, rather than a legal CCW permitee. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kelpdiver 2 #12 May 7, 2004 QuoteQuoteThis is exactly the situation that gun controllers present to oppose CCW permits. Except that this one wouldn't apply, because all handgun ownership is banned in Chicago, so this gun owner was already a law-breaker, rather than a legal CCW permitee. That's besides the point, John. If it were legal, it would happen "MORE OFTEN." And besides that, I think we agree that one's right to self defense overrules such laws, like for the homeowner that shot a burglar. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
markd_nscr986 0 #13 May 7, 2004 Ok...I'm back.......couple of observations...... 1)If it is the same type of souvenir bat that they sell/give away at the Rockies games, you are looking at a 2ft piece of ash with the size and heft of a billy club,trust me...you would not want me or anyone else to break one over your head,it would leave you unconscious with a big bump or a skull fracture or both!!! 2)the article decried the fact that a dastardly firearm was used,but made no mention of the condition of the driver(the one used for batting practice).If you saw a family member or friend struck down by a club wielding assailant,would you stand by and do nothing or maybe use harsh language on him?I think not,you would use any means you had at hand to stop the attack and disable the attacker,including lethal force!!! 3)it would be interesting to see what Mr Hernandez'(the bat wielder) blood alcohol level was;cooler heads should have definitely prevailed and I just think how much of that incident could be attributed to liquid courage! 4)and, I thank Lord Buddha that Colorado is not burdened with a bunch of assinine and inane restrictions on firearms ownership.....unlike Illinois!!Marc SCR 6046 SCS 3004 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
JohnRich 4 #14 May 7, 2004 QuoteThat's besides the point, John. If it were legal, it would happen "MORE OFTEN." I don't believe so. Something like 34 states now issue concealed handgun licenses. There are lawful people carrying guns legally all over America. And in none of these states has there been any problem from this law, sufficient to cause anyone to revoke it. In fact, more states come on board with their own laws each year. It just isn't a problem. The anti-gun organizations like to try and scare eveyrone into voting against such laws with "blood in the streets" scare stories. But it just isn't happening. People who are irresponsible, don't bother to get concealed carry licenses, and thus are a problem anyway, regardless of whether or not a concealed carry law is in effect. That fact that there isn't such a law in Chicago, as this incident shows, proves that irresponsible people don't pay attention to laws. Therefore, nothing would change by implementing the law. Everyone who is a problem, is already a problem now. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
markd_nscr986 0 #15 May 7, 2004 couldnt said it better myself John......Thanks!!!Marc SCR 6046 SCS 3004 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Jimbo 0 #16 May 7, 2004 Another story: Quote By David Heinzmann, Jeff Coen and Rex W. Huppke Tribune staff reporters Published May 7, 2004, 4:13 PM CDT The two men being held this afternoon in connection with the fatal shooting of a baseball fan Thursday evening outside Wrigley Field have arrest records for weapons offenses and other incidents, police reports and court documents show. The man who allegedly shot to death Frank Hernandez, 26, during an apparent road-rage incident pleaded guilty in 1998 to unlawfully possessing a firearm, court records showed. Police reports indicate the suspect is an admitted gang member. The driver of the sport-utility vehicle that allegedly nearly struck Hernandez, triggering the confrontation, was arrested for illegal possession of a firearm and domestic battery in two separate incidents last year, but the charges in those cases were dropped, police records show. Charges have not yet been filed in connection with Thursday's incident, and the two men remained in police custody this afternoon as the city mourned Hernandez's death. The victim's father, also named Frank Hernandez, said he went to Illinois Masonic Medical Center late Thursday to identify his son's body. "It was like he was just lying there sleeping, with a smile on his face. That's the way he always was. Happy," the father said in an interview today at the family's home on the 5600 block of West 64th Street, Chicago. The man spoke of the irony of losing his son to street violence after having moved his family five years ago from the area surrounding 48th Street and Damen Avenue. There, family members would hear gunshots every night, and the father said he feared for their safety. "And then he dies from a gunshot," the elder Hernandez said, his head slumping down. "I just can't believe it. He was going up to Wrigleyville. You wouldn't think anything would happen up there." That disbelief was echoed by Ald. Thomas M. Tunney (44th), who called a news conference in his Lakeview office this afternoon to express sympathy for the Hernandez family and reassure visitors to his neighborhood. "I do want to emphasize this was an isolated incident," Tunney said. "Families, residents and visitors to the park should feel very safe in continuing to patronize this (Cubs) season, which is sold out." Tunney said he believed the police presence around Wrigley was "adequate," "as evidenced by the rapid response by police" to the shooting. The alderman said the violence apparently arose out of "a road rage incident that could have happened anywhere. Unfortunately, it happened in my community." "This is not tied into Wrigley Field," he said. "This is a societal problem that happens all over the country and in our city. The fact there are handguns out there in cars is unconscionable." The elder Hernandez said his son, a documents administrator at OWP&P Architects Inc. in downtown Chicago, always was willing to help his friends. He used his computer skills to help them put together resumes and get jobs. If someone was having a hard time, he would round people up and take them to baseball games. "He was beautiful. Always ready to help anyone. If I needed anything, he was always there. He was like that with everyone," the father said. The younger Hernandez was crossing Clark Street around 6:10 p.m. Thursday when he exchanged words with a driver who was turning left from Addison Street, police said. The driver jumped out of his SUV after the pedestrian hit the vehicle's hood with a small souvenir bat, police said. The two exchanged blows, and a passenger in the vehicle got out and opened fire on Hernandez. The driver was taken into custody at the scene, and the passenger was apprehended after a short chase, according to police and witnesses. Court documents showed that the year before his 1998 weapons conviction, the alleged gunman was charged with disorderly conduct in a gang-related incident. Officers responding to a report of shots being fired in the 1300 block of North Greenview Avenue saw the man yelling, flashing gang signs and holding his waistband as if he had a weapon, court records show. Officers arrested the man. They did not recover a weapon, and the disorderly conduct case was dropped. The SUV's driver, who works as a tuckpointer at a job site near Wrigley Field, was charged last November with illegally possessing a firearm, and last June for domestic battery after he allegedly threw his girlfriend down during an argument in their home, but the charges in both cases were dropped, according to police reports. The Associated Press contributed to this story. Copyright © 2004, Chicago Tribune And even more available here: http://tinyurl.com/yv2du I've created an account on the Chicago Tribune page: Login: dropzone1 Pass: dropzone - Jim"Like" - The modern day comma Good bye, my friends. You are missed. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
JohnRich 4 #17 May 7, 2004 QuoteThe man who allegedly shot to death Frank Hernandez, 26, during an apparent road-rage incident pleaded guilty in 1998 to unlawfully possessing a firearm, court records showed. Police reports indicate the suspect is an admitted gang member. Thanks for that update. What timing! This validates my statement in message #14. He was already forbidden to carry a gun due to a prior gun conviction. He was already forbidden to have a handgun because Chicago has banned them. All this incident proves is that criminals don't give a darn about gun laws, and will continue to obtain and carry them anyway. Gun control laws don't work. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
christelsabine 1 #18 May 7, 2004 JohnRich, be unbiased from time to time: This has been discussed in another thread (one of your lovely weapon threads). no matter how hard you try, you cannot control any black market, especially the gun black market. Do not blame gun control laws on that. dudeist skydiver # 3105 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
JohnRich 4 #19 May 7, 2004 QuoteJohnRich, be unbiased from time to time: Definition: "Unbiased": Agrees with christelsabine? Quoteno matter how hard you try, you cannot control any black market, especially the gun black market. We agree on that. And what it means is that gun control laws are a failure when they attempt to do that. QuoteDo not blame gun control laws on that. I'm blaming the criminals for that. Gun control laws don't stop criminals. Therefore, gun control laws are a failure. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
JohnRich 4 #20 May 7, 2004 A recent study: "Evaluating the Effectiveness of Strategies for Preventing Violence: Firearms Laws", October 3, 2003. Summary: "During 2000--2002, the Task Force on Community Preventive Services (the Task Force), an independent nonfederal task force, conducted a systematic review of scientific evidence regarding the effectiveness of firearms laws in preventing violence, including violent crimes, suicide, and unintentional injury. The following laws were evaluated: bans on specified firearms or ammunition, restrictions on firearm acquisition, waiting periods for firearm acquisition, firearm registration and licensing of firearm owners, "shall issue" concealed weapon carry laws, child access prevention laws, zero tolerance laws for firearms in schools, and combinations of firearms laws. "The Task Force found insufficient evidence to determine the effectiveness of any of the firearms laws or combinations of laws reviewed on violent outcomes." If they can't prove that any gun laws are effective, then those gun laws should be rescinded! And since they couldn't prove what they hoped, they couldn't resist adding this little bit of disclaimer: "Note that insufficient evidence to determine effectiveness should not be interpreted as evidence of ineffectiveness." Hah! In other words, they still cling to the hope that passing gun laws will actually make criminals obey gun laws. Here are some examples of what they found, by type of gun law: "Bans on specified firearms or ammunition. Results of studies of firearms and ammunition bans were inconsistent: certain studies indicated decreases in violence associated with bans, and others indicated increases." "Restrictions on firearm acquisition. Overall, evaluations of the effects of acquisition restrictions on violent outcomes have produced inconsistent findings: some studies indicated decreases in violence associated with restrictions, and others indicated increases." "Waiting periods for firearm acquisition. Studies of the effects of waiting periods on violent outcomes yielded inconsistent results: some indicated a decrease in violent outcome associated with the delay and others indicated an increase." "Firearm registration and licensing of owners. Only four studies examined the effects of registration and licensing on violent outcomes; the findings were inconsistent." "'Shall issue' concealed weapon carry laws. Results across studies were inconsistent or conceptually implausible." work! "Child access prevention laws. ...the findings of existing studies were inconsistent." "Combinations of firearms laws. ...available evidence was insufficient to determine whether the degree of firearms regulation was associated with decreased (or increased) violence. The findings were inconsistent." Gun laws don't work! http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/rr5214a2.htm Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
christelsabine 1 #21 May 7, 2004 Quote"Unbiased": Agrees with christelsabine? Of course NOT ***I'm blaming the criminals for that. Gun control laws don't stop criminals. Therefore, gun control laws are a failure JohnRich: This answer is a good one. And just now see it related to all crimes happening in the world. We cannot control every felony happening everywhere, how the hell will you prevent anything? So, we simply created laws. Even they are not accepted by everyone or simply will not work on everything. That's it in my opinion. And that's why i always will support the laws. dudeist skydiver # 3105 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 3,116 #22 May 7, 2004 >Gun laws don't work! -------------------------------- Washington, DC—Americans for Gun Safety (AGS) today urged Congress to quickly approve the McCain-Lieberman gun show bill after a background check at an Oregon gun store led to the arrest of an apparent member of the terrorist group Hamas. Ali Khaled Steitiye was arrested in Beaverton, Oregon after he attempted to purchase a gun from The Gun Broker, a federally licensed gun dealer in Tigard. Steitiye, a Lebanese native, has a long record of felony convictions from various states. This week, he was indicted by a federal grand jury for illegal possession of firearms and for lying on the federal form used to conduct a background check. In a search of his home, police found weapons, ammunition, $20,000 in cash, fake citizenship documents, and fraudulent social security cards. -------------------------------- Seems like some do. Heck, we might just have stopped a terrorist attack via that particular law. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Kennedy 0 #23 May 7, 2004 QuoteThis is exactly the situation that gun controllers present to oppose CCW permits. There are thousands and thousands of CCW permits out there. Do you know how many murders have been committed with pistols carried by permit bearers? None. That's right, ZERO. On average, people with CCW permits actually commit fewer crimes at all levels than the rest of the population. There are always predicitons of wild west gun fights in the streets when a state considers instituting CCW. Well, more than 30 states now have CCW, and it hasn't happened. There are always predictions that shoot outs will happen over traffic accidents. Well, there is exactly one instance of a CCW permit holder shooting someone after a trsaffic accident, and it was ruled self defence on the scene by officers and again by the state's attorneys. (a gorilla of a man came at him with a wrench for no reason, he feared for his life, he fired)witty subliminal message Guard your honor, let your reputation fall where it will, and outlast the bastards. 1* Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Casurf1978 0 #24 May 7, 2004 Kennedy, Is the process for CCW permit pretty stringent? I mean does special circumstances factor in it? For example lets say a diamond dealer in NYC wanted one cuz his job his "high risk" for robbery. Just curious. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Kennedy 0 #25 May 7, 2004 QuoteJustifiable Self Defense? Unless the victim (dead guy) physically pulled the driver from the vehicle and started whacking uncontrollably, I doubt it is justifiable self defense ... especially when it was a BYSTANDER that pulled the gun and shot the guy, not the driver. A person with a gun can use any amount of force to save another person that the person being attacked may reasonably use. That means if some gorilla of a man is attacking someone, and that person would be justified in using deadly force to protect himself, then I would be justified in using deadly force to protect them. The crux of this case is whether or not the driver initiated violence. (striking the SUV doesn't count, that's property). If the driver started the violence, then he would not be justified in using deadly force, so neither was his passenger. If the ball fan with the bat started the fight, then the driver would be justified (most likely) in using deadly force, and that means the passenger (most likely) was justified in using deadly force to protect him. ps - I can testify to it, those souvenir bats can do some real damage.witty subliminal message Guard your honor, let your reputation fall where it will, and outlast the bastards. 1* Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
