The Glade 4.0
https://gladerebooted.net/

Gang members get blasted for trying to rob store.
https://gladerebooted.net/viewtopic.php?f=8&t=2926
Page 1 of 2

Author:  Screeling [ Thu May 13, 2010 9:39 am ]
Post subject:  Gang members get blasted for trying to rob store.

http://azstarnet.com/news/local/crime/a ... d274f.html

Quote:
Armed shop owner, worker thwarted heist; 4 men ID'd

Four men who tried to rob a north-side auto shop Tuesday were thwarted when the store's owner pulled out a shotgun and an employee drew a handgun in a shootout that turned deadly for the robbers, police said.
One of the robbers was killed, the three others were injured and the shop's owner suffered a bullet wound in the arm, police said. The employee who fired the fatal shot was not hurt, police said.
On Wednesday, a 20-year-old man was arrested and two others are facing charges in connection with the incident.
Carlos Peyron was booked into the Pima County jail on charges of first-degree murder, attempted aggravated robbery, attempted armed robbery and kidnapping, said Sgt. Fabian Pacheco, a Tucson police spokesman. He is facing charges under the felony murder rule, which allows prosecutors to charge people with murder if someone dies during the commission of certain felonies.
Toney Stith, 26, and Anthony Peyron, 19, were wounded in the shootout and will face the same charges once they are released from the hospital, Pacheco said.
The man killed in the shooting was identified by police as Noah Lopez, 18.
The four men are all gang members, he said. Anthony and Carlos Peyron are brothers.
Police gave this description of the incident:
Four men went into M&M Customs, which sells and installs car alarms, at 3040 N. Stone Ave., a little after 7 p.m.
They confronted an employee, forcing him into the back office.
The shop's owner, who was in the office, pulled out a shotgun and fired, wounding Anthony Peyron.
The robbers tried to flee but encountered a locked door. Lopez turned to the business owner and shot him in the forearm.
The employee got a handgun from his tool kit and shot Lopez, who had turned his gun on the employee.
Lopez ran from the business and was found dead by police a short distance away.
Stith was wounded in the lower extremities, while Carlos Peyron was hit in the back of the head with the stock of the shotgun.
The victims held the suspects at gunpoint until police officers arrived.
Two of the suspects had served time in Arizona Department of Corrections.
Stith was released from prison in March after serving about six years for armed robbery and aggravated robbery, according to state prison records.
Carlos Peyron had served about two years for aggravated assault.
The names of the shop's owner and employee were not released.

Incidentally, it drives me insane how some media outlets print one sentence per line.

Author:  Micheal [ Thu May 13, 2010 9:42 am ]
Post subject: 

So, are they citizens or persons illegally in the United States, this being Arizona?

Author:  Screeling [ Thu May 13, 2010 10:00 am ]
Post subject: 

Well, its the Arizona Daily (Red) Star reporting so if they were here illegally, I don't think they'd report it. I don't know.

This paper printed some breaking information from a "high level anonymous source" that the rancher shooting at the border was actually a U.S. citizen and was forced to retract the statement once law enforcement got pissed. This newspaper is slanted so far to the left its ridiculous.

I assumed these guys were citizens though because they had been in the AZ DoC already.

Edit: My hand spazzed trying to scroll the page and I hit submit on accident.

Author:  Ladas [ Thu May 13, 2010 10:08 am ]
Post subject: 

Recent story here with similiar situation and outcome.

4 people entered a restaurant at 3:00 AM while the employees were cleaning up after closing, tried to rob them at gun point. Several of the employees happened to be armed and shot back, killing one of the attackers, some 16 yr old. This one is mostly also related to gang activity, but small communities here have trouble accepting that gangs exist, so its not "discussed".

Author:  Screeling [ Thu May 13, 2010 10:17 am ]
Post subject: 

Where at, Ladas?

Author:  Ladas [ Thu May 13, 2010 10:27 am ]
Post subject: 

Gaffney, SC, home of the giant peach.

Local NBC news article

Earlier local Fox affiliate story, which includes the fact the same restaurant was robbed a couple days before.

BTW, appears the autopsy report was released, but not picked up in updates of those articles..

Another local news outlet with report from coroner about the one killed shot twice from the front, not the back as claimed. Not that it matters much, since the Prosecutor already said no charged would be filed against the employees.

Author:  Rorinthas [ Thu May 13, 2010 12:14 pm ]
Post subject: 

You think people would figure it out by now. A responsibly armed citizenry is a greater threat to the evildoer than the innocent.

Author:  Elmarnieh [ Thu May 13, 2010 12:21 pm ]
Post subject: 

This is why criminals report an armed would-be victim is much much more feared than police.

Author:  Serienya [ Sun May 16, 2010 7:05 pm ]
Post subject: 

Anyone for trying out what was done in Heinlein's Time Enough for Love?

If you kill a robber, you get a cash reward from the town, and you have to post the head of the would-be robber on a spike outside your business. (And then a copy when the head gets too icky.)

Author:  Rorinthas [ Mon May 17, 2010 6:36 am ]
Post subject:  Re: Gang members get blasted for trying to rob store.

I'd rather not the reward to be honest.

Author:  RangerDave [ Mon May 17, 2010 9:59 am ]
Post subject:  Re:

Rorinthas wrote:
You think people would figure it out by now. A responsibly armed citizenry is a greater threat to the evildoer than the innocent.


The problem is the word "responsibly." There are a lot of jack*sses out there. Speaking anecdotally, I know 0 people who have used a gun to defend themselves against a criminal, but I know 1 who accidentally blew his friend's head off, 1 who was killed by his neighbor in the middle of the afternoon over a stupid argument, 1 who was accidentally shot (but lived, fortunately) while hunting, 1 who went to jail for raping a girl at gunpoint (legally purchased gun and no prior offenses) and 1 who had an accidental discharge that barely missed his father. Of course, that's in VT, where gun ownership is very common but serious violent crime is very rare.

All that said, I do think people should have the right to own guns if they want, and most people who do are quite safe and responsible. I just don't buy the argument that increasingly widespread gun ownership wouldn't pose a risk to innocent people. Increase the % of the population engaging in any activity, and you increase the number of idiots engaging in that activity.

Author:  Ladas [ Mon May 17, 2010 10:14 am ]
Post subject: 

Sounds like you need a better pool of friends RD... While I don't personally know anyone that used a gun to defend themselves, I also don't personally know anyone with anything remotely similiar to the list of activities using a gun you listed.

Author:  Khross [ Mon May 17, 2010 10:16 am ]
Post subject:  Re: Gang members get blasted for trying to rob store.

RangerDave:

I'll provide you with a similarly biased anecdote ...

I'm not saying all rapists are black, but of the 17 women I know who've been raped, none were raped by a white man.

Author:  Diamondeye [ Mon May 17, 2010 10:24 am ]
Post subject:  Re: Re:

RangerDave wrote:
The problem is the word "responsibly." There are a lot of jack*sses out there. Speaking anecdotally, I know 0 people who have used a gun to defend themselves against a criminal, but I know 1 who accidentally blew his friend's head off, 1 who was killed by his neighbor in the middle of the afternoon over a stupid argument, 1 who was accidentally shot (but lived, fortunately) while hunting, 1 who went to jail for raping a girl at gunpoint (legally purchased gun and no prior offenses) and 1 who had an accidental discharge that barely missed his father. Of course, that's in VT, where gun ownership is very common but serious violent crime is very rare.

All that said, I do think people should have the right to own guns if they want, and most people who do are quite safe and responsible. I just don't buy the argument that increasingly widespread gun ownership wouldn't pose a risk to innocent people. Increase the % of the population engaging in any activity, and you increase the number of idiots engaging in that activity.


Except for the fact that guns are already so prevalent that further increase is unlikely. Not only that, but when other people own guns, it deters at least some of the fools from acting like fools. It also promotes the wider dissemination of information on how to responsbily handle guns, and tht reduces the idiocy itself.

Author:  RangerDave [ Mon May 17, 2010 10:29 am ]
Post subject:  Re:

Ladas wrote:
Sounds like you need a better pool of friends RD... While I don't personally know anyone that used a gun to defend themselves, I also don't personally know anyone with anything remotely similiar to the list of activities using a gun you listed.


Nah, none of them were really friends. Just people I kind of knew from high school or who lived nearby. I suspect it's actually not that unusual for a rural area. Two of the five were just non-fatal hunting accidents, and the others are the kinds of things you get when you mix poor, uneducated people with high rates of alcoholism and gun ownership.

Author:  RangerDave [ Mon May 17, 2010 10:35 am ]
Post subject:  Re: Re:

Diamondeye wrote:
Except for the fact that guns are already so prevalent that further increase is unlikely. Not only that, but when other people own guns, it deters at least some of the fools from acting like fools. It also promotes the wider dissemination of information on how to responsbily handle guns, and tht reduces the idiocy itself.


I agree that it reduces the percentage of gun owners who act like idiots, but it pretty much inevitably increases the raw number of gun-owning idiots. If every household in America had a gun, the percentage of gun owners committing crimes and having accidents might decrease, but the number of such crimes/accidents would go up.

Author:  RangerDave [ Mon May 17, 2010 10:37 am ]
Post subject:  Re: Gang members get blasted for trying to rob store.

Khross wrote:
I'll provide you with a similarly biased anecdote ...

I'm not saying all rapists are black, but of the 17 women I know who've been raped, none were raped by a white man.


Aye, I'm just offering the anecdote for illustrative, not evidentiary purposes. My actual argument is simply that increasing the number of people who own guns inevitably results in increasing the number of idiots who own guns. There may well be offsetting benefits to more widespread gun ownership, but I think it's silly to pretend there won't also be some downsides.

Author:  Diamondeye [ Mon May 17, 2010 11:04 am ]
Post subject:  Re: Re:

RangerDave wrote:
I agree that it reduces the percentage of gun owners who act like idiots, but it pretty much inevitably increases the raw number of gun-owning idiots. If every household in America had a gun, the percentage of gun owners committing crimes and having accidents might decrease, but the number of such crimes/accidents would go up.


The raw numbers of idiots isn't really imporant though. They don't magically become idiots when they get a gun. These sorts of people have plenty of opportunities to cause disasters.

More to the point, the original comment was that reponsible gun owners are more of a threat to criminals that innocent people. As the percentage of idiots drops, that only becomes more and more true (and even idiots can be a threat to criminals too). Deterring criminals and dealing with them is more realistic that trying to stop fools from causing accidents.

Author:  Hopwin [ Mon May 17, 2010 11:08 am ]
Post subject: 

You can't claim that guns serve as a deterrant unless it is advertised to be in your possession.

Aka: Beware Night Clerk is armed or open-carry.

Author:  Diamondeye [ Mon May 17, 2010 11:20 am ]
Post subject:  Re:

Hopwin wrote:
You can't claim that guns serve as a deterrant unless it is advertised to be in your possession.

Aka: Beware Night Clerk is armed or open-carry.


That is not true. If criminals know there is a reasonable likelyhood that their target is armed, that is a deterrent in and of itself. Any criminal can perfectly well understand that if some clerks are armed and some are not he has a certain chance of robbing the one that is.

Author:  Elmarnieh [ Mon May 17, 2010 11:23 am ]
Post subject: 

Actually you can because a criminal will know if their state allows for conceal carry or not, if it does then they know there is a chance of an armed individual. In OC states some people advertise, others do not.

Author:  RangerDave [ Mon May 17, 2010 11:33 am ]
Post subject:  Re: Re:

Diamondeye wrote:
The raw numbers of idiots isn't really imporant though. They don't magically become idiots when they get a gun. These sorts of people have plenty of opportunities to cause disasters.


I don't see why the raw number of idiots (with guns) wouldn't be important. If more idiots have guns, then the chance of a random person being shot by some idiot will go up. Surely that's a relevant factor when considering the net gains/losses to public safety associated with increasing gun ownership.

Author:  Hopwin [ Mon May 17, 2010 11:50 am ]
Post subject: 

Quote:
In Ohio, instances of violent crime increased by about 4 percent in the year the gun law was passed.

Then, from 2005 to 2006, violent crime dropped, according to the most recent statistics available from the U.S. Department of Justice.

Jim Irvine, chairman of the Buckeye Firearms Association, said many factors play into crime rates, but he agreed the concealed-carry law isn't one of them.

"I'd love to be able to say it's reduced crime, but I don't think we can say that," he said.

Author:  Diamondeye [ Mon May 17, 2010 11:52 am ]
Post subject:  Re: Re:

RangerDave wrote:
Diamondeye wrote:
The raw numbers of idiots isn't really imporant though. They don't magically become idiots when they get a gun. These sorts of people have plenty of opportunities to cause disasters.


I don't see why the raw number of idiots (with guns) wouldn't be important. If more idiots have guns, then the chance of a random person being shot by some idiot will go up. Surely that's a relevant factor when considering the net gains/losses to public safety associated with increasing gun ownership.


Not really. First of all, idiots tend not to shoot "random people", they tend to shoot either themselves or a family member or associate. We aren't concerned with idiots accidentally shooting themselves. Shooting friends or family in accidents isn't really a public safety issue in a sense that relates to deterrence of criminals, or even in terms of net public safety because it generally doesn't take place in public. It's only a "public safety" issue in the sense that safety organizations end up dealing with it.

Second, if someone does accidentally shoot another random person, that's generally either a crime in and of itself (eithe rby negligence or as a byproduct of committing another crime), or an accident as a result of defending onesself from crime. In that case, the issue isn't idiots with guns, it's criminal behavior.

Author:  Diamondeye [ Mon May 17, 2010 11:54 am ]
Post subject:  Re:

Hopwin wrote:
Quote:
In Ohio, instances of violent crime increased by about 4 percent in the year the gun law was passed.

Then, from 2005 to 2006, violent crime dropped, according to the most recent statistics available from the U.S. Department of Justice.

Jim Irvine, chairman of the Buckeye Firearms Association, said many factors play into crime rates, but he agreed the concealed-carry law isn't one of them.

"I'd love to be able to say it's reduced crime, but I don't think we can say that," he said.


Where is this from and how does he arrive at that conclusion?

Page 1 of 2 All times are UTC - 6 hours [ DST ]
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group
https://www.phpbb.com/