Man Shot, Killed Outside Grocery Store

[oneshooter]

CONYERS, Georgia – A would-be robber who was shot and killed by his intended victim outside a busy grocery store parking lot during an attempted robbery on Saturday night.
The shooting stemmed from an armed robbery attempt in which the Conyers man was attacked at knife point by two men.

The assailants tried to rob the 23-year-old victim at knifepoint, not knowing that he was armed.
One of the two assailants was identified as 30-year-old Yuhanna Abdulah Williams. He was shot in the head in an attempted robbery. His accomplice escaped on foot and remains at large.
According to the police, there was struggle between the victim and the robbers that resulted in the death of Williams, who was shot in the head and died at the scene.

More here:
http://site.ninjacops.com/blog/4424/man-shot-killed-outside-grocery-store/

Why would anyone NEED to carry a gun to the grocery store?
If they have the drop on you they will take your gun.
Two questions are answered at the same time!

Oneshooter
Armed and Livin in Texas

[Deep13]

1. "...attacked at knife point..."

C: I'll take axioms for 200, Alex.

A.T.: The answer, one should never take a knife to this.

C: What is a gunfight?

[RSillsbee]

2. No harm no foul

The robber decided on a dangerous occupation and had it catch up with him. No harm no foul, I just feel sorry for the poor guy that has to live with the memory of being given no choice but to use violence to protect himself.

[sharesunited]

3. One point awarded, since the robbers did not have a gun.

If the victim had complied and turned over his money, would they have cut him?

Can't know for sure, but seems unlikely.

[Katya Mullethov]

5. How many points for a "Full Buzzi" ?

If it doesnt get you shot , of course .

[RSillsbee]

6. Will the crook ever rob anyone again?

Seems unlikely.

[Pavulon]

7. I'll pass on that bet.. If the robber decided not to rob people with a weapon

he probably would not have been shot by one of his victims.

[Straw Man]

8. Zero points...

...for the ghoulish point system.

If the victim had complied and turned over his money, would they have cut him?

Can't know for sure, but seems unlikely.

See bold for pertinent information. I advise against entrusting your life to the good will of the person who is robbing you with a deadly weapon.

[spin]

10. You have to be in the shoes of the person who is being attacked ...

and look into the eyes of the attacker. The eyes are the mirror of the soul.

If all the attacker wants is your money, you just give him your wallet. You can replace your money and anything you have in the wallet. You can't replace your heath or your life. You might throw your wallet and run as the robber will probably go for your wallet not you.

If the person looks insane or appears to want to slice and dice you, you do whatever is necessary to stop the attack up to and including lethal force. Note that your object is to stop the attack not to kill. If you are unarmed and get involved in a close and personal fight with a individual armed with a knife, expect to get cut. If your attacker is an experienced knife fighter you will probably be seriously hurt at the best.

If you had the foresight to have prepared for such a situation by obtaining a firearm and a license (if necessary) to carry it, you have a much better chance of survival in a situation where you believe that you will be attacked with a knife.

It's always nice to sit in front of a computer in complete safety and award points to a robber armed with a knife because he didn't have a firearm.

[Atypical Liberal]

14. Are you serious?

If you had the ability to defend yourself, why would you even take the chance of putting yourself at your attacker's mercy?

Who would comply with criminals when you have the ability to resist? I'm at a loss.

[PavePusher]

17. And no lawful Citizen is obligated to risk harm to themselves.

Better get used to that.

[sharesunited]

19. The reasonable person standard is an objective one.

A trier of fact will determine what the real and perceived risk of harm was in any given situation where self defense results in death.

*Or* a sympathetic prosecutor will wink and nod.

[badtoworse]

22. You never weighed in on this one

What should this woman have done?

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=118x349034

[slackmaster]

4. Tragic waste of life

Mr. Williams and his friend made a series of poor choices.

[safeinOhio]

9. Another meaningless anecdotal

story. Now don't bitch when someone post a story about a legal CCW holder shooting someone in a road rage incident.

[Straw Man]

11. Anecdotal Anecdotes

Fair enough, as long as "they" stop claiming that rogue CCWs outnumber legitimate defensive users of firearms.

[friendly_iconoclast]

12. On the contrary, it was a excellent response to one of your "colleagues"

who keeps claiming that carrying guns in public is unnecessary, and that gun owners can't take on criminals. Examples (emphasis added):

Hoyt (497 posts) Sun Dec-12-10 01:53 PM
Response to Reply #18
19. Actually I'm suggesting that if you can't leave home without a gun, don't walk in malls with it.

Preferably, leave it at home -- but I know some of you just can't leave home without your gun. I don't think trying to keep your gun from being stolen is a rationale for folks carrying into public parks, church, bars, schools, Chuck E Cheeze.


Hoyt (497 posts) Sun Dec-12-10 03:10 PM
Response to Reply #28
30. I'm saying there is not enough danger that warrants folks carrying in public


Hoyt (497 posts) Sun Dec-12-10 08:24 PM
Response to Reply #37
44. I do make exceptions for women -- they usually aren't "playing" cowboy, public defender, etc.

Nor, are they likely to think they are prepared/trained to take on criminals in a public place like so many here.

I wouldn't be able to post emabarassing quotes like this if they weren't uttered in the first place.


Now as to the value of posting anecdotes in general- I guess you 'forgot' that you participated in the thread where this was posted:


http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=118x351128#351240

Euromutt (1000+ posts) Wed Dec-15-10 02:21 AM
Response to Reply #11

19. Anecdotal evidence can serve a legitimate purpose, namely to disprove a rule

A rule, in this case, meaning any statement that claims that something always happens, or never happens. For example, if someone claims that "all swans are white" or "swans are never black," all it takes is one black swan to prove that person wrong. Anecdotal evidence is useless for telling how often something happens, but it does tell you whether that something does or does not happen at all (e.g. that one black swan doesn't tell you what percentage of swans of swans are black, but it does tell you it's not zero).

[safeinOhio]

13. I guess I could point out what your "colleagues"

in the GOA and RKBA members of the KKK say too, but I won't.

"Anecdotal evidence is useless for telling how often something happens, but it does tell you whether that something does or does not happen at all (e.g. that one black swan doesn't tell you what percentage of swans of swans are black, but it does tell you it's not zero)." So, that would apply to any story posted about a legal gun owner breaking the law?

Now a meaningful post might least the number of innocent people that have been saved by handguns compared to the number on innocent people killed by handguns.

[Atypical Liberal]

15. Even more meaningful

Even more meaningful would be to compare the number of firearm owners in this country with the number of firearm crimes committed every year.

I bet you'll find the vast majority aren't involved.

[friendly_iconoclast]

16. Ok, I admit I used the associational fallacy there.

After all, A might believe B- but that doesn't mean all those who believe B agree with A about anything else.
Prominent examples:

Robert Welch, the founder of the John Birch Society, opposed the Vietnam War. Dick Cheney claims to support same-sex marriage


Let me show you some other people I'd like to have as colleagues:

Euromutt (1000+ posts) Mon Oct-12-09 09:06 PM
Response to Reply #84

85. What happens if a black woman owns a gun?

Fannie Lou Hamer (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fannie_Lou_Hamer ) attributed the fact that no racist redneck ever tried to burn a cross on her lawn (or worse) to the fact that she let it be known that she kept "a shotgun in every corner of the room." It's a bit curious to assert that one of the leading lights of the civil rights movement was out to "demonize minorities, distort the issue of crime in America, express contempt for women gaining access to power, and distract Americans from the real issues of democracy."

And when Eleanor Roosevelt went to the South to support the civil rights movement, she made damn sure she kept a loaded revolver on the car seat beside her in case some Klansmen ever tried anything.


friendly_iconoclast (1000+ posts) Tue Oct-13-09 12:32 AM
Response to Reply #85
89. Then you get Harriet Tubman. Or Zora Neale Hurston
Edited on Tue Oct-13-09 12:37 AM by friendly_iconoclast
http://www.hartford-hwp.com/archives/45a/305.html

Abolitionist's rifle engulfs N.J. artist in fray
By John Yocca, staff writer, Baltimore Sun, 13 June 2000

Her every step a perilous one, famed abolitionist Harriet Tubman could afford no slip-ups as she shuttled slaves to freedom through the Underground Railroad.

Timing was tight, indecision an enemy. When escaped slaves in her care hesitated on the frightening march to liberation, Tubman, a determined and gritty former slave herself, coaxed them northward with a loaded gun.

A century-and-a-half later, New Jersey artist Mike Alewitz chose that Image of Tubman -- a lantern in one hand, a rifle in the other -- as the centerpiece for one of five sprawling ceramic murals he fashioned for the state of Maryland, Tubman's birthplace.

For Alewitz, the depiction is appropriate, both historically accurate And symbolic of the danger Tubman faced as she led more than 300 slaves out of captivity. But the artist's creation has been less than well received by The nonprofit group that was to display the work on an exterior wall in Baltimore this month....

Zora Neale Hurston:

"We, too, consider machine gun bullets good laxatives for heathens who get constipated with toxic ideas about a country of their own.”

New York Times, December 3, 2001

Tales of the Devil, Heaven and Ole Massa, Too
By JANET MASLIN

...Driving her own car through the rural South and toting a gun, Zora Neale Hurston embarked in 1927 on a two-year effort to collect samples of African-American folklore. She was a Barnard College student of anthropology at the time....

friendly_iconoclast (1000+ posts) Tue Oct-13-09 04:14 AM
Response to Original message
93. Here's a specific instance of Burbicks' falsification of history. From Buzzflash, yet.
http://blog.buzzflash.com/interviews/041


Gun rights ideology undermined social movements that were saying that political power and economic power needed to be extended to women and people of color in the United States.


Oh, really?

Seems Ms. Burbick 'forgot' several important instances of women and/or people of color exercising
their Second Amendment rights.

I give you:

Eleanor Roosevelt. Used to drive around the South with a handgun at her side, and she knew how to use it:






Robert F. Williams, author of "Negroes With Guns" and host of "Radio Free Dixie". Also the subject of
a biography with the same title.

The Deacons For Defense And Justice. Who organized armed self-defense for civil rights activists.

The Lumbee tribe, of North Carolina. Who drove off the KKK at the Battle of Hayes Pond.

The Black Panthers. Whose practice of 'open carry' with loaded firearms scared the shit out of the
white establishment of California (and J. Edgar Hoover), and led that well known progressive
Ronald Reagan to sign the Mulford Act banning that practice in California.


http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=118&topic_id=144160&mesg_id=144226

[Euromutt]

18. I can quote the second paragraph of my earlier post

Not that I'm convinced it'll do any good, since you have a remarkable talent for ignoring anything that counters your little pet hypotheses (how many times has the existence of Haynes v. United States been pointed out to you?). But since it's a matter of a quick "copy 'n' paste"...

And that's the difference between the "guns used to do harm" postings on the one hand and the "guns used to avert harm" on the other: none of the pro-RKBA "usual suspects" denies that guns are sometimes used to commit violent crimes, so evidence that they sometimes are doesn't prove the pro-RKBA crowd wrong. By contrast, the "guns used to avert harm" postings do effectively counter arguments along the lines of "guns are only good for killing" and "nobody needs to carry a gun in public, and even if the need did arise, they'd never manage to use it effectively." Note the underlined words indicate absolutisms.

And there might be some point to your "guilt by association" fallacy (http://fallacyfiles.org/guiltbya.html) if there were any members of the GOA or the KKK posting on this board, but they seem to be thin on the ground around here.

[safeinOhio]

20. If you'd like to double check my post and

history on this forum, you'll never find me advocating taking away guns from legal law abiding citizens. I have never argued "guns are only good for killing" and "nobody needs to carry a gun in public" or anything like that. I have disagreed with any such statements on this forum. I do argue against fewer restrictions on sales that can not be traced and for better training and testing for CCWs. Yet you feel free to falsely accuse me of doing so. I have not done this anymore than you have come out in support of the KKK or GOA. I felt free to lump you with those as you were first to tie me to the those you did.

The fact is that both sides have used individual news stories to make points against the other side and then scream bloody murder when the other side does the same thing.

[Euromutt]

21. This may come as a shock, but it's not always about you

I have never argued "guns are only good for killing" and "nobody needs to carry a gun in public" or anything like that.

I'm well aware of that, but there are people on this forum who have. And as I have tried to explain, stories of successful self-defense using firearms, while anecdotal, do disprove such claims.

What you are asserting is that a number of us wield a double standard, rejecting stories unfavorable to their paradigm (if you will) as "anecdotal" while fervently embracing equally anecdotal stories when those stories favor their point of view. And my point is that this is not, in fact, a double standard, because while both classes of story are, indeed, anecdotal, the nature of the claims for which they are cited as evidence are different.

The pro-RKBA claim, in broad lines, comes down to "situations do arise in which private citizens find themselves forced to resort to using a firearm in self-defense; they are able to do so successfully; and these situations are not so rare that one can dismiss them as a fluke." Anecdotal evidence is sufficient to support these claims.

By contrast, stories of "harm done with guns" are presented with the implicit (because the poster is often too gutless to commit to an argument for fear it might be eviscerated) argument that these events are typical examples of what happens when private citizens are not prohibited from owning firearms, or at least from carrying them in public. Anecdotal evidence is insufficient to support such claims, because there's no way to tell how representative the anecdotes are of the overall situation with regard to relative frequencies of events. At best, it can tell you that it is true that event X sometimes happens, or that is false that event Y never happens.

The distinction that makes the standard non-double, then, lies not in the nature of the evidence (it's all anecdotal) but in the nature of the claims it's cited to support.