AK-47 used in murder

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

Just kidding it was an SKS. Here is the story.

Local prep athletes face murder charges

Two high school football players have been arrested on charges they killed a 55-year-old woman during a botched home invasion robbery. One of the teenagers is paralyzed after one of the robbery victims shot back, according to the Bradenton Police Department.

Detectives arrested Palmetto High School students Ta Heem Blake, 17, a former running back for the school, and Marquis Sanders, 18, who transferred from Bayshore High School. They face charges in the shooting death of Maria Lerma early Sunday, Bradenton Police Deputy Chief William Tokajer said.

Blake and Sanders are accused of barging into Lerma’s home in the 900 block of 25th Street East just before 6 a.m. Sunday in a robbery attempt.

snip

The teens found Lerma and two men in the home when they entered, and Blake opened fire with an SKS rifle, according to Tokajer. Detectives say he killed Lerma, and shot one of the men in the house in the arm.

The teens did not count on one of the men in the home pulling his own gun, firing and hitting Blake. Police officers and emergency personnel found Blake shot in the driveway.

snip

Link Here: http://www.bradenton.com/news/local/story/1198759.html



Is anyone teaching their kids anything, anymore?


David

[cliffordu]

1. OMFG!!!! 1111!!! 1!!! ! ! ! 1 !1 An assault weapon!!!

thwarted by a handgun./..

Too bad about the woman, but without the handgun they all would have died, sounds like...

Just goes to show, it's the shooter, not the weapon......mostly.

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

3. self delete

[spin]

2. The amazing thing is that the newspaper didn't call the weapon an AK-47...

The teens found Lerma and two men in the home when they entered, and Blake opened fire with an SKS rifle, according to Tokajer. Detectives say he killed Lerma, and shot one of the men in the house in the arm.

Nor was the term "assault weapon" used in the article.

For those who are not familiar with the SKS rifle:

The SKS is a Russian 7.62x39mm caliber semi-automatic carbine , designed in 1945 by Sergei Gavrilovich Simonov. SKS is an acronym for Samozaryadniy Karabin sistemi Simonova. underlining mine
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SKS

As compared to the AK-47 assault rifle:

1947, Soviet assault rifle, one of the most widely used shoulder weapons in the world. The initials AK represent Avtomat Kalashnikov, Russian for “automatic Kalashnikov,” for its designer, Mikhail Timofeyevich Kalashnikov (b. 1919). It has both semiautomatic and automatic capabilities and fires intermediate-power 7.62-millimetre ammunition. underlining mine
http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/11305/AK-47#toc11305main

Notice how much less terrifying this article is when the newspaper doesn't shout AK-47 or assault weapon ? (Of course, I understand that any situation that involves shooting and death is sad and tragic.

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

4. That's what I found so interesting.

[jeepnstein]

5. Just the facts...

Sounds to me like the reporter was actually listening in Journalism 101.

The article was clear and concise. That's a rare bird in the newspaper biz these days.

[jody]

6. Accurate reporting on incidents involving firearms is rare. Kudos to the reporter. n/t

[iverglas]

7. you know I have to play devil's advocate

The teens found Lerma and two men in the home when they entered, and Blake opened fire with an SKS rifle, according to Tokajer. ... The teens did not count on one of the men in the home pulling his own gun, firing and hitting Blake.

What we have here is the word of one person as to who fired first.

I have no idea whether that word is credible. I am simply pointing out that it is the word of one person, at this point.

It is possible that the person in the house actually fired first. It is possible, in that scenario, that if he had not done so, the robbers would not have fired, they would simply have robbed. Those are the odds, after all -- there are a whole lot more robberies than homicides. Is that a credible scenario? If they were not masked, for instance, perhaps not. It would be a little stupid to commit a crime like that if one were identifiable.

No one would suggest -- and I AM NOT SUGGESTING AND WOULD NOT SUGGEST -- that if someone breaks into one's home and points a firearm at one, one would not have a reasonable apprehension of serious injury or death, and a reasonable belief that there was no alternative, in order to avoid serious injury or death, than to use force, and therefore be justified in using the force that was necessary.

My question, once again, is simply: what if the intended victim of the robbery had not had a firearm? Would anyone at all have been shot? I don't have a crystal ball. But it is a question that arises, given that robberies are so much more common than homicides.


I think we should have a house rule that someone who posts a news story commits to following up on that story and posting subsequent developments, btw.

[AtheistCrusader]

8. Unfortunately correct.

Impossible to know, but if the homeowner had not had a firearm, perhaps no shots would have been fired at all. Clearly one possibility. Not one I personally would risk pursuing, but certainly a possibility.

Curious if there will be any followup. Multiple adults in the house, and they broke in anyway. I wonder if there was some particular reason this house was targeted. Most burgulars won't attempt entry to an occupied home. I wonder if drugs or some other illicit activity might be involved. (This is a casual observation, not an assumption of guilt)

[iverglas]

10. yes, well

I wonder if there was some particular reason this house was targeted. Most burgulars won't attempt entry to an occupied home. I wonder if drugs or some other illicit activity might be involved. (This is a casual observation, not an assumption of guilt)

I thought I'd stick to casting one aspersion at a time. ;)

But: indeed. One does wonder on such occasions.

And one has been proved right in the past.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=118x98607

[tburnsten]

9. Well five people were in the house overall

Three people who had a right to be there and two who were there with ill intent, and only one of those people is now deceased. So the prosecutor has four separate accounts, two from each side, to go off of. Either way that was a situation in which deadly force was totally appropriate and justified, but as far as which one fired first, I think the prosecutor will be able to determine that with relative ease. Also it wouldn't make sense to shoot one of the unarmed people while someone is shooting at you, so I think the fact that the homeowner was shot and killed lends some credibility to the story as it stands right now. If someone were shooting at me, I certainly wouldn't waste any time shooting at a bystander in their position.

[iverglas]

11. reasonable analysis

We're all just speculators in this marketplace of ideas. ;)


nine words, and I spell one wrong ...

[tburnsten]

12. I'm feeling a little behind today too

no worries. Grammar optional.

[AtheistCrusader]

13. On the other hand

Could have been a wild shot.

Impromptu gunfights is crazy:
http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=e55_1234305715

[tburnsten]

14. Yeah, planning and reasoning tends to fall apart when lead is coming your way

[gorfle]

28. Those shots don't look wild.

Looks like the homeowner drilled the driver seat through the windshield.

AR15 used in the robbery though.

[AtheistCrusader]

29. I was referring more to the wild retreat of the intended robbers

They had no plan, no coordination, no idea what to do when things went south. Their shots could have gone anywhere, even into the sky.

[gorfle]

30. Yeah those guys

Those guys were steppin' and fetchin' like their hair was on fire and their asses were catchin'!

[Howzit]

15. "what if the intended victim of the robbery had not had a firearm?"

"Would anyone at all have been shot?"

This questions would seem to acknowledge that you cannot disarm criminals by forbidding them guns, but that you potentially could forbid law abiding victims from having the means to defend themselves. Now, there seems to be something very disturbing about this question; because if this is your ideal situation, where victims are legally disarmed so as to prevent them from triggering criminals into an escalation of force, the mind simply boggles:

Anyone who threatens others with violence in order to rob them most likely is more than willing to follow though and deliver on that offer. In some places home invasion robberies and carjackings routinely end with the victim being killed. It is not as though one were negotiating a legal contract with the crooks where you agree not to hurt each other as long as they don't take your wedding rings. You don't know what they are planning to do or how they might react - if they come armed you assume the worst. If you get the opportunity to turn the tables on them you take it swiftly and without any further analysis.

Would you advise our teenage daughters to go along with strange men who try to abduct them because there is a definite possibility that the abductors may not actually harm them? Would it not be better to escape from the situation as soon as possible by any means possible, rather than wait and see how it plays out?

People who choose to rob others by force know their occupation is a dangerous one. If such a crook is hurt when they confront an armed victim, my attitude is tough luck. I happen to think it is immoral to allow crooks to rob or abuse me, if there is anything I could do to prevent it. Yes, by not acting to dissuade crooks from abusing you, you are reinforcing their behavior and allowing them to go on and abuse others. Where is your sense of responsibility to the community?

[iverglas]

16. "This questions would seem to acknowledge ...

... that you cannot disarm criminals by forbidding them guns, but that you potentially could forbid law abiding victims from having the means to defend themselves."


Can you even try to make sense?

"Acknowledge that you potentially could forbid law abiding victims from having the means to defend themselves"?

The mind boggles.


What the question was, was an invitation to speculate. If you don't want to, you don't have to.


In some places home invasion robberies and carjackings routinely end with the victim being killed.

The ex-urban townships of South Africa, maybe?


If you get the opportunity to turn the tables on them you take it swiftly and without any further analysis.

You seem to think you're arguing with someone here ...


Would you advise our teenage daughters to go along with strange men who try to abduct them because there is a definite possibility that the abductors may not actually harm them?

Would you occasionally exhibit a tiny shred of decent respect for people whom you choose to address in public?


People who choose to rob others by force know their occupation is a dangerous one. If such a crook is hurt when they confront an armed victim, my attitude is tough luck.

The problem here, sweetheart, is that the person who is dead WAS NOT A ROBBER.

Seeing the problem at all? Seeing why I issued the invitation to speculate?


I happen to think it is immoral to allow crooks to rob or abuse me, if there is anything I could do to prevent it. Yes, by not acting to dissuade crooks from abusing you, you are reinforcing their behavior and allowing them to go on and abuse others. Where is your sense of responsibility to the community?

I happen to not give a shit what you think is immoral.

And I ask again: where is that shred of decent respect for other members of this community?

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

18. And you accuse people of being dishonest.

People who choose to rob others by force know their occupation is a dangerous one. If such a crook is hurt when they confront an armed victim, my attitude is tough luck.

The problem here, sweetheart, is that the person who is dead WAS NOT A ROBBER.

Seeing the problem at all? Seeing why I issued the invitation to speculate?


Where exactly did Howzit say the robber had been killed? Do you see the problem at all? I guess in Canada it's polite to change what people say to try and prove a point.

David

[iverglas]

19. Davey. Grow up.

Where exactly did Howzit say the robber had been killed?

I don't know. As far as I can tell, he didn't. What are you talking about?


I guess in Canada it's polite to change what people say to try and prove a point.

I doubt that it is where you are, and you're the only one doing it.

I pointed out to your chum that he was straying from the issue.

He was the one talking about shooting robbers.
I was the one talking about a victim of a robber's gunshot.

His blather about righteously shooting robbers was entirely irrelevant to ANYTHING I had said.

HE was the one pretending I had said something I hadn't -- by yammering off at me about how righteous it is to shoot people who are engaged in violent behaviour.
I had EXPRESSLY SAID that such actions were obviously justified.

MY POINT was that in THIS CASE it was a VICTIM of the robbery who was killed.

MY QUESTION was whether that might not have happened if one of the victims had not had and used a firearm.

NOTHING WHATSOEVER to do with the righteousness of shooting bad guys.

All your little chum did was MISREPRESENT everything I said.

And here's you joining in.

Quelle surprise.

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

20. You do it all the time, what's good for the goose so to speak.

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

21. Ivy. Quit being so bitter, you really need to forgive all the people that have wronged you.

[tburnsten]

22. Although one of the robbers is now paralyzed

Seems like it still counts as an occupational hazard to me.

[iverglas]

23. does that relate to something under discussion here?

You've replied to me, and yet you are saying something that has absolutely nothing to do with anything I said.

[tburnsten]

24. well, you said that the only person who died was not one of the two robbers

so I just reminded you that being shot and paralyzed, even if you don't die from it, is still a serious occupational hazard of armed robbery and is still a pretty negative result for the one who was paralyzed.

[tburnsten]

25. Did you get your project completed on time?

[iverglas]

31. did I look like I did? ;)

Up all night, finished around 11 a.m. yesterday ... still haven't finished the one due on Monday, which is a total dog's breakfast.

I contract with the gu'mint. Dead over January with the House not being in session. Suddenly, in the last 10 days, every government client I have ever done work for, including one not heard from since 2007, has been throwing things at me ...

[tburnsten]

32. Sticky. Good luck!

I suppose Canada probably doesn't take monday off, does it? We have President's Day, being a .gov employee is sweet because we get all the federal holidays off.

[iverglas]

34. hmm

Does Canada take Monday off to celebrate US presidents? I dunno ... do you take Victoria Day off? ;)

We don't have a February holiday and we have whined about this for a long time. If anybody needs a holiday in February, surely it's us. Maybe we should check how the Russians do it ...

A couple of provinces have started some idiotic artificial thing called Family Day, which I think is supposed to be a day off in February. I don't know when it is, and I don't think anybody else does.

Being a govt employee is great for stat holidays. Being a govt contractor means being told by return email, when I say I'm taking the week after Canada Day off to go visit my elderly mother, that I don't get days off. And then sitting on my hands for a week because they didn't send me any work anyway.

And no pension, no sick leave, etc. etc. My grandfather struck for the 40-hour week in the 30s, and here's me in the new economy, my job now a business. Yeah, it was by choice for me, back before privatization, and I make a pile, but it isn't like that for most people whose jobs are now contracts, and I do feel a little guilty being part of it all. They've occasionally tried to seduce me back inside, and once in a while I've done contract work within their four walls, training for instance, but I think I'd shoot myself if I had to do it 5 days a week, 9 to 4:30. But then, I'd have had 25- or 30-and-out early retirement by now ...

[gorfle]

26. I wonder.

It is possible that the person in the house actually fired first. It is possible, in that scenario, that if he had not done so, the robbers would not have fired, they would simply have robbed.

So it seems the question is, is it better to simply submit and allow yourself to be robbed (and hope that is as far as it goes) out of fear of the consequences of resistance?

I think we should have a house rule that someone who posts a news story commits to following up on that story and posting subsequent developments, btw.

I vote that Iverglas performs all follow-up work. :)

[iverglas]

27. see post 17

I vote that Iverglas performs all follow-up work.


I'm on this case.

But really. I think Davey should shoulder his own responsibilities here.

[Indy Lurker]

33. Depends on what else they did

Here's a list with some data.

If you have any better data, please post it as well.


From the survey 15% of the people who cooperated were still injured after cooperating.

29% of the victims who tried to run away were still injured after trying to get away.

2.6% of the victims were injured after threatening the offender with a firearm.

0% of the victims were injured after attacking the offender with a firearm.



Of course dead victims don't fill out surveys.





The "Injury" columns measure "whether the victim suffered any kind of physical injury. 'Loss' refers to whether the victim lost any property during the crime. Finally, a significant recent improvement in the NCVS allows analysts to separately identify injuries inflicted after the victim engaged in some form of self-protection ('post-SP injury'). This is important, because these are injuries that could have been provoked by the SP measure and thus could be regarded as a cost of self-protection, whereas injuries inflicted before the victim used the self-protection measure could not be so regarded. Of course, it should be stressed that even among post-self-protection injuries, some might have been inflicted even in the absence of self-protection, so the rate of post-self-protection injury should be regarded as an upper limit estimate of the rate of injury that was provoked by victim self-protection." (pp. 289-90)

[iverglas]

35. see post 17

I did post it to clarify some of the circumstances and assist in the speculation ...

[iverglas]

17. some details

just for info

http://www.bradenton.com/news/local/story/1219508.html

In the fatal home invasion, Bradenton police reports say Sanders held a man at gunpoint in Lerma’s home and waited at the front door as a lookout during an attempted robbery.

Blake, a former running back on the Palmetto High football team, shot Lerma with a rifle and wounded another man in a bedroom before rifling through dressers, according to police reports.

Blake remains in a St. Petersburg hospital paralyzed after Lerma’s son pulled his own gun and shot Blake as he tried to run from the home, according to police reports.

and also for info, since we were curious about the choice of target and such

http://www.bradenton.com/news/local/story/1208741.html

Since November, Sunday’s home invasion marked the sixth robbery with similar suspect descriptions as Ta Heem L. Blake and Marquis Sanders on the eastside of Bradenton, police said.

“We have had recent robberies reported that involved groups of black males robbing Hispanic victims,” said Bradenton Capt. Joseph Vorva, eastside district commander.

Most of the recent robberies have been committed by teens wearing bandanas or hooded sweatshirts covering their faces in the same area of town and holding up victims at gunpoint.

When Lerma’s home was invaded, allegedly Blake wore a mask and Sanders a hood pulled over half his face, police said.

... According to the arrest report, at about 5:45 a.m. Sunday, allegedly Blake and Sanders stormed the home in the 900 block of 25th Street East by breaking a sliding glass door. A 23-year-old man in the living room immediately confronted them, but Sanders pointed a gun and forced the victim to the front of the house, according to police reports. There Sanders unlocked the front door and waited as a lookout, reports said. Blake then ran into a bedroom, finding Lerma and her 27-year-old boyfriend. The man lunged with a machete at Blake, who opened fire on the victim, shooting him in the forearm. Police reports say Blake then turned his SKS rifle on Lerma and killed her.

More stuff in that report, as well.

[guntard]

36. Clearly, that fact that one of the victims was armed just made matters worse

And now a sweet, harmless beautiful boy, with his whole life ahead of him, lies paralyzed.