There’s nothing like a justifiable homicide to bring out the bigotry resting in the heart of Old Media reporters.
Armed hero saves 4 lives during home invasion robbery
Daily Deal for Los Angeles
51% off
9-Disc Language-Learning System
As evidenced by cute-as-a-button viral videos, babies speak their own specialized language. Luckily, today's deal from My...
Join Examiner.com on Facebook
Comments
There are even more pieces of the puzzle unanswered.
How did Mr. Brown come in possession of his original weapon?
Since he was recognized from a photo for the county detention center, was he authorized to be in possession of that weapon to begin with?
If not, how did he acquire that weapon?
If he acquired the weapon illegally, who should be held responsible for selling him that weapon if he was unable to purchase one legally?
Did he own more than the one found in his car, or did he go purchase another one, in a person to person sale in the 7 hours between fleeing the police and attempting the home invasion?
If he had been prevented from acquiring a gun, would he have entered the building to attempt his crime if he had only armed with a knife?
Fortunately none of his victims were killed before he was killed.
Mark: We'll never know, unless somebody decides to perform a séance or something. North Charleston PD has plenty to do, so unless they stumble on a black market dealer in the course of another investigation, this is all anybody's going to write, which is a lot more than the mass media, with their additional resouces, decided to tell us. To obtain a copy of Brown's rap sheet, an application must be made in person, and there are other restrictions. I tried already, but I don't live in the area.
Howard,
My point was that this guy was very likely a person who was prohibited from owning guns in the first place. The real question is how did he come to acquire at least 2 guns (the one found in his car, and the one he used to threaten his victims)? Until gun advocates can police themselves, they will have the so called "gun banners" chasing them around to put even stricter gun laws in place. Allowing person to person sales with out any sort of background check makes it easy for those who could not get a gun through a FFL to get a gun. If this guy only had one gun, it shows that he was able to get another one in less than 7 hours. Sure he was a criminal and could have gotten it on the black market, but he could have also purchased it "legally" in a person to person sale. Without any records of such sale, we will not know either way. How can you talk about enforcing the laws on the books - specifically those that are intended to prevent ownership of guns by those not qualified to do so by statute - while making it easy for such persons to acquire a gun?
Why would a sane person sell a gun to a stranger they know nothing about? When you do that, you facilitate the so called straw purchase and become an advocate for any gun to any person any time. At the very least, the person that buys a gun from a FFL should be required to keep a record of who they sold the gun to. You may re-sell it legally, but may have facilitated the sale to a criminal in which case you are part of the "black market" trafficking problem. Your right to bear arms does not absolve you of the obligation to protect the community. Self defence starts before guns are drawn.
Mark wrote:
"Until gun advocates can police themselves, they will have the so called "gun banners" chasing them around to put even stricter gun laws in place"
If only 100 people a year were murdered with firearms, gun banners would still be trying to ban them. We can't regulate and police all the stupid people in America, Mark. Thats just a fact of life.
mark, look up the DOJ statistics and try to calm down. He was likely to have bought the guns on the black market or he stole them. A face-to-face transaction with a legitimate seller would have probably cost the guy way too much since it appears that he's having serious money problems. When I sell, I don't sell at "bargain prices" my friend. I get what they're worth. And they're always worth a lot.
Lets get the facts straight.
#1 This guy was under the influence or needed another fix when the cops pulled him over. He was in possession of a controlled substance, a (probably) unlawfully possessed weapon and eluded police.
#2 The guy kidnapped 4 people at gun point, entered their home unlawfully with the intent to commit a crime and demanded money from them while threatening to kill them.
#3 He was killed by a law abiding citizen with a lawfully possessed firearm who was within his legal rights to defend himself and his friends under the circumstances.
It is fortunate this man had a legal firearm and the fortitude to do what was necessary based on the situation the criminal chose to create. No one forced the criminal to commit multiple felonies and risk innocent lives (on the road as well as at gunpoint).
So why does anyone have a problem with the legal gun or the man who used it? When the heck are we as a society going to stop blaming guns for criminals choices and start holding individuals responsible for their criminal choices and decisions?
I would be happy to have this gentleman that defended himself as a neighbor. We as a society are safer because of his choices.
Mark: Your hypothesizing is becoming more troll-like and I think you should quit trying to make your point. If Brown bought another gun between 1 and 7 AM, how could this have been a legal sale? Now you make "gun advocates" responsible for the criminal's actions. I think you just outed yourself as an anti-rights advocate pretending to be a gun guy. In fact, don't you have a web site by that name? Or is this your cry for help?
Mark, I find it necessary to lay it on the line to you. Nobody wants to publicly come out and say this but I will. The problem with guns in this country (particularly handguns) is largely a racial problem, sure you have white nutcases shooting people including their families sometimes but when you look at the big picture, break down the percentages, and ignore the childish media, black kids are responsible for a vast majority of shootings and in turn making it a huge pain in the A$s for the much larger group of sensible gun owners. They are also responsible for the thefts of many guns from gun shops across america. If you think for one minute that people are going to sit back and watch their last line of defense taken away because of this, then you got another thing coming. If anyone breaks into my house and threatens my family , I'm going to blow their head off, got it? and If i happen to be armed, i will do the same if my family or myself is threatened outside my house. I say to the government that is breeding this type of aimless, worthless youth and trying to render me defenseless and dependent , I promise you the bloodiest civil war if you try to disarm law abiding citizens.We will be appearing all over the place and ready to kill your servants.
"If he acquired the weapon illegally, who should be held responsible for selling him that weapon if he was unable to purchase one legally?"
---------------------------
he got those guns from the master criminal known to police officers across the nation as "sumdood", (and in britian and australia as "sumbloke") who also supplies the sstreet drug market. wherever the law is being bent or broken "sumdood" is there.
Okay. The first thing I notice is that you're saying that the newspaper was biased in its reporting. I think you're the one with a case of bias going on here. You're biased in favor of shooting people and getting away with it.
I don't disagree with you. If someone goes into a house and attempts to hold a bunch of people and threatens them with a gun, that person probably needs shot. If someone who is being threatened happens to have a gun...then good on em...blow the guy away, he made his bed..
However, your slant that the newspaper was all anti-gun is just plain wrong. The quotes you provide from the neighbor may not have been referring to the shooting of Brown, the neighbor was probably referring to the home invasion. Even if he wasn't, it doesn't show bias on the part of the newspaper to quote a witness. Should they have quoted a witness that was more in line with YOUR opinion? Should they maybe have ignored what he said because it disagreed with how you feel?
Dan: Bias is assuming things when there is no definitive evidence.
You said: “the neighbor MAY not have been referring to the shooting of Brown, the neighbor was PROBABLY referring to the home invasion.”
May? Probably?
Then you reverse yourself and say “in any case…”
Media bias is a proven fact. Read Lott’s “The Bias Against Guns.” In most cases, media quote more positive interviews about the deceased than the defender; many more words spent on the shooting than the legal outcome when justified. This is bias.
As for me being “biased in favor of shooting people and getting away with it,” again you assume things you don’t know. Had you read some of my other articles, I explain legal and ethical parameters of using deadly force.
Criminals expect to shoot people and get away with it. Decent folk shoot to stop and then have to deal with unpleasant fallout. They never “get away with it.”
Got something to say?
Examiner.com is looking for writers, photographers, and videographers to join the fastest growing group of local insiders. If you are interested in growing your online rep apply to be an Examiner today!