Man had gun in mall fight, cops say

[jpak]

http://www.thedailyjournal.com/article/20110225/NEWS01/102250313

VINELAND -- A family feud that erupted within the AT&T store at Cumberland Mall on Wednesday evening ended with a loaded gun on the store counter and one person heading to jail.

<snip>

Mutts told police he was leaving the store when Escobar said something to him that he did not catch. Then Escobar added, "We can take this outside," Mutts told police.

When he saw Escobar go to lift his shirt, Mutts told police he tackled his brother-in-law to the ground. Putting Escobar in a headlock, he said, he grabbed a gun he felt tucked in Escobar's waistband.

Mutts then placed the .22-caliber gun on the counter of the store and held Escobar down until he could no longer do so, police said. Escobar then ran out of the store heading toward the mall exit, where police arrested him, said Capt. John Lauria.

<more>

the more guns republics put out in the street - the more of this kind of shit will happen

yup

[MrCoffee]

1. He broke the cardinal rule...never bring a mall to a gun fight.

[DonP]

2. I must have missed the part where Escobar had a CCW permit

Could you point out where that's mentioned for us? Or is this just another of your "Cut and Paste" Spam crime stories that's supposed to have some kind of relevance to law abiding people?

[Ken_Fish]

3. I'm sure this man was carrying legally and a fine citizen.

on his was home to his nice 3 million dollar house in Bridgewater when this happened.

Oh shit, I bet he is just some criminal POS that does not have a ccw. Why is this relevant to me?

[Spoonman]

4. Too funny.....

"Escobar also was wanted on four outstanding warrants, two issued by Vineland Municipal Court and two from Cumberland County Superior Court. He is being held in the county jail on $100,000 bail."


A criminal doing criminal shit equates to EVERYONE should give up their constitutional rights!

Please feel free to keep demonstrating the fallacies of your argument.

[RamboLiberal]

5. +1

[Starboard Tack]

12. Nobody is saying you have to give up your constitutional rights

There are 2 ways to solve this problem, either give up carrying guns in public or change the constitution. Either of those paths would be consistent with evolution rather than devolution.

[Spoonman]

14. I beg to differ

Both of your solutions ARE giving up your constitutional rights and devolution in nature.

Your are obviously uneducated in the roots of gun control.

[Starboard Tack]

17. Amending the constitution is constitutional

That's how you got the 2nd Amendment. Your are obviously uneducated in the roots of the constitution.
My other solution would be a personal choice which is also constitutional

[Spoonman]

20. I'll be more than happy to compare brain pans on constitutional law

when it is actually the topic of discussion.

So please spare us the intellectual dishonesty.

Let’s see if you have enough brain pan to stay on topic and dispute my assertion.

You clearly stated

There are 2 ways to solve this problem, either give up carrying guns in public or change the constitution

To which my reply was

Both of your solutions ARE giving up your constitutional rights

I’ll spell it out for you *slowly*

If you give up ANY constitutional right, voluntarily or by legislation, your ARE surrendering your constitutional rights.

[Starboard Tack]

24. Wrong

Not exercising your constitutional right does not meant surrendering that right, you just decide not to exercise it. My right is to carry or not to carry. I am not telling you not to carry. I only hope that you and others decide to exercise that right by not carrying in public, as most of us do.
The repealing of the 2nd Amendment would be up to our elected representatives, who tend to be rather gutless on this issue. So you can relax for now. We still have a way to go.

[Callisto32]

43. Present a false dichotomy...

pretend the other person is uneducated....


Classy

[Starboard Tack]

50. Hey, keep the safety on

Maybe you should read the post I was replying to before you jump

[GreenStormCloud]

16. Please explain how me giving us legally carrying a gun...

...will stop criminals from illegally carrying theirs. You did notice the Escobar was a criminal and illegally carrying didn't you?

[Starboard Tack]

18. It won't and I never said it would.

But if you all gave them up, good guys and bad guys, wouldn't our world be a safer place. I'm not telling you, I'm just asking. When an innocent person gets shot, do you think he/she cares whether the gun was legal or not.

[X_Digger]

22. And if guns turned into food, we could feed america!

And if rainbows shot out your ass, you'd be a headliner in Vegas.

When you come up with a 'way to solve this problem' that forces bad guys to stop illegally carrying guns, you be sure to tell us, m'kay?

[GreenStormCloud]

26. Your problem is you assume that the bad guys will give them up.

Please show me any time in world history in which the bad guys have voluntarily disarmed. Since the bad guy WON'T give them up then I keep mine to be able to defend myself. Disarming only the good guys will predictably lead to more innocents getting shot and stabbed and beaten as they are emboldened by defenseless victims.

[Starboard Tack]

49. What happens when the good guys become the bad guys?

[Ken_Fish]

53. The same thing that happens when "responsible" people drink to much and murder people with cars..

they go to prison and destroy their lives. So we gonna ban booze now?

[Starboard Tack]

54. Good point. It is illegal to drink and drive

Is it illegal to drink and carry?

[X_Digger]

55. Yes, it is. n/t

[Ken_Fish]

57. Yes, in my state it is. Either way, a bad idea IMHO(nt)

[Euromutt]

60. It's certainly illegal to carry while legally "under the influence"

In my own state of Washington, it's illegal to carry into an establishment (or part of an establishment) declared by the Liquor Control Board to be off-limits to persons under 21, i.e. bars, bar sections of restaurants and "lounges" (a bar attached to a restaurant). It is not illegal to carry in a restaurant that incidentally sells alcohol beverages for consumption on the premises, nor is it illegal to consume an alcoholic beverage while carrying, but it is illegal to be in possession of a firearm in public while legally "under influence."

Strictly speaking, it's not illegal to drink and drive either; it's illegal to drive while legally "under the influence," i.e. with a BAC of over 0.08% (trust me, I'm licensed to tend bar in the state of Washington). As a rule of thumb, two drinks won't put you over that, especially if consumed with a meal (unless you're particularly slight of build).

[Euromutt]

59. For your perusal: "The Myth of the 'Virgin Killer'"

http://www.hoffmang.com/firearms/kates/Myth_of_the_Virgin_Killer-Kates-Polsby.pdf

[guitar man]

37. You know

I'd rather not have to carry, it's kind of a pain in the ass at times, but there are times in the course of my business that I'd be a fat, juicy target for violent criminals if I was unarmed.

So, I'll make you a deal, I promise you that if you can get all the criminals to stop carrying guns, I'll leave mine at home. How about it guys, who is with me?

Go on, don't waste time hanging around here, you have a lot of criminals to reach out to. ;)

[Euromutt]

47. That certainly was what you seemed to be saying

In your post #12, you said:

There are 2 ways to solve this problem, either give up carrying guns in public or change the constitution.

Since there's little reason to assume the Damien Escobars of this world are reading this forum, it was reasonable to assume that the recommendation to "give up carrying guns" was directed only at those of us on this forum who do so.

But if you all gave them up, good guys and bad guys, wouldn't our world be a safer place. I'm not telling you, I'm just asking.

If you're just asking, try using a question mark to indicate that.
The answer to your question is undoubtedly yes; however, it should be noted that the world would be a safer place to an almost equal extent if only the "bad guys" gave up their guns, whereas it would not be noticeably safer if only the "good guys" did. Unfortunately, expecting the "bad guys" to give up their guns voluntarily is about as realistic as expecting the Flying Spaghetti Monster to replenish the world's oil reserves and magic away global warming. Even if you were to get the Constitution amended (and what? make it doubly illegal for them to carry guns?) they wouldn't pay attention, just like certain criminals in other countries don't comply with the gun laws there.

So of your "2 ways to solve this problem" neither actually seems to provide a solution.

[PavePusher]

34. Criminals first.

Let me know what your plan for that is.

[JustABozoOnThisBus]

6. Thanksgiving dinner must be a hoot in that family

Grandma probably presides with a prayer of thanks and a 12 gauge.

[Name removed]

7. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[ThatPoetGuy]

13. Isn't this a flame? nt.

[hughee99]

8. If only we could get all the guns off the street, there would be no more mall fights. n/t

[Euromutt]

41. If we closed all the malls, there would be no more mall fights

And for that matter, no more mall shootings either. Better plow up the parking lots as well, just to be on the safe side.

[Starboard Tack]

9. Interesting how the unarmed brother in law took him down

without a gun and nobody got hurt. He didn't need a gun or a fancy CCW permit, just put him on the floor where he belonged. He said he was carrying the gun for self defense LOL

[Ken_Fish]

10. That great. Not relevant to a ccw I hold or the other millions of them out there

but I am very happy this criminal did not shoot his wifes brother with a 22 he was carrying illegally. It just made my whole weekend.

[GreenStormCloud]

15. That's because Escobar was bluffing. N/T

[Callisto32]

44. That nobody got hurt is AWESOME.

But in no way supports the position that people should give up the option of deadly force.

[Atypical Liberal]

11. Another criminal with a gun. Yup. Nothing to do with CCW permit holders. Yup.

Escobar had four outstanding arrest warrants.

CCW permit holders are hardly ever involved in crime.

Using Escobar as an example of why law-abiding people should not be allowed to carry firearms is stupid.

Yup.

[Starboard Tack]

19. The example being made was not Escobar, but Mutt

who was unarmed. Thankfully.

[Hoyt]

21. Less than 10% of 303,821,226 who DON'T carry in public have ever been involved in a crime either.

Society is much better off without armed folks walking around in public thinking they are going to protect themselves or others.

[Atypical Liberal]

23. And consequently, no laws are being proposed to affect those people, either.

Less than 10% of 303,821,226 who DON'T carry in public have ever been involved in a crime either.

And consequently, no one is proposing laws to infringe on their rights because of the actions of criminals, either.

Society is much better off without armed folks walking around in public thinking they are going to protect themselves or others.

I have shown you the data over and over again that shows that people CCW permits are hyper-law-abiding people. The rate of conviction for CCW permit holders for ALL CRIMES is less than one-quarter of one percent.

In what way is society harmed by such people walking around in public with a firearm?

[Starboard Tack]

25. In what way is society harmed by such people walking around

in public with a firearm?
Well, the rest of us find it somewhat unnerving, especially if 25 out of every thousand are convicted. That's a heck of a lot. But most of us are just bewildered by your desire to carry in public. I assume you wouldn't carry if you weren't prepared to shoot someone, otherwise it would be pointless. That's the scary part, a bunch of would be Rambos running around thinking that a CCW permit transforms them into a super hero.

[Atypical Liberal]

29. Your being nervous is not really a justification for anything.

Well, the rest of us find it somewhat unnerving, especially if 25 out of every thousand are convicted. That's a heck of a lot. But most of us are just bewildered by your desire to carry in public. I assume you wouldn't carry if you weren't prepared to shoot someone, otherwise it would be pointless. That's the scary part, a bunch of would be Rambos running around thinking that a CCW permit transforms them into a super hero.

Fortunately, we don't constrain our lives based on what might make other people nervous.

But the fact of the matter is, your fear is completely irrational. In Texas, over the last decade, every year CCW permit holders account for less than one-quarter of one percent of all convictions. In Florida, over the last two decades over 2 million CCW permits have been issued. In that same time, only 168 of them have been revoked due to criminal action by the CCW holder - a cumulative revocation rate of less than one-hundredth of one percent.

Allowing people with CCW permits to carry firearms in public is not harmful in the slightest. CCW permit holders are less likely to be involved in any kind of crime than a non-CCW carrying citizen. What could possibly be scary or nerve-wracking about that?

[Starboard Tack]

30. Yes, but permit or not people are carrying in public

I'm sorry, but that's just not cool. You say yourself that almost .025% of permit holders commit crimes. That's a lot. 25 out of every thousand. And most of those are probably domestic shootings, but that's another discussion. My "fear" is in your mind, not mine. I'm not afraid, just concerned and intellectually curious. Personally,I think carrying publicly, open or concealed, sets a bad example to our youth and is antithetical to civilized behavior. Not to mention how others around the world perceive us when it comes to guns.

[X_Digger]

32. No, that's *any* crime.. not specifically a shooting.

The Texas DPS just release the crime stats for CHL holders for 2008 and 2009.

These are the rates of CHL holders among themselves compared to the rates of the general public over 21. If I tried to graph just the actual number of crimes committed by CHL holders vs the general public, they wouldn't show up on the graph..

[GreenStormCloud]

35. Your math needs LOTS of work.

.025% is NOT 25 in 1,000. It is 25 in 100,000. How can you expect to be taken seriously when you butcher facts so badly? Texas publishes detailed statistics. Perhaps you may wish to take a look: http://www.txdps.state.tx.us/administration/crime_records/chl/convrates.htm

[Starboard Tack]

51. Paper never refuses ink. Sorry, Im usually quite good at numbers

[Atypical Liberal]

36. "unnerving"

My "fear" is in your mind, not mine. I'm not afraid, just concerned and intellectually curious.

Well, before you said, "Well, the rest of us find it somewhat unnerving"

I read that as you find people who carry firearms to be mildly scary.

That's a lot. 25 out of every thousand. And most of those are probably domestic shootings, but that's another discussion.

No, that's .25% of all crimes committed. Everything from "Public Lewdness" to murder.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=118&topic_id=374332

And you missed a decimal place there. .25% is the same thing as .0025. 1000 x .0025 = 2.5 per 1000. And even if you think that is a lot, the fact of the matter is, it's a lower rate than people without CCW permits!

It doesn't really matter what your personal opinion is on firearms, on people who carry them, or what sort of example you think it sets.

The question is, what kind of harm does it cause society?

And as the data plainly shows, the answer is "none". People who go to the trouble and expense to follow the letter of the law to carry firearms are, predictably, very law-abiding people who are willing to pay strict attention to the law, pay money, and navigate bureaucratic red tape to undertake a completely voluntary responsibility. These people, not surprisingly, tend to pay attention to laws in general.

So society is no less safe from such people carrying firearms. The data is pretty unambiguous.

Now, as to setting bad examples to our youth and being uncivilized.

The fact of the matter is, for all of recorded history there have been people who were and are willing to victimize others to get what they want. It is part of the human condition that we are creatures of desire. The essence of growing to an adult is learning to put the needs and desires of others ahead of our own needs and desires. But there have always been, and are, people who cannot or will not do this. People who will put their own needs and desires above those of others, and do so at any cost. In short, there always have been, and always will be bad people.

I submit to you that there is nothing uncivilized in people resisting such bad people. In fact, I would say that resistance to bad people is an important keystone of any civilized society. Societies that are at the mercy of bad people are inherently in a state of chaos and lawlessness and that is the antithesis of civilized behavior.

You may labor under the impression that true civilized societies appoint special people to deal with the bad people, and indeed most do. But such special people cannot be at all places at all times, nor would any free society want them to be. What this means is that invariably there will be times when bad people are at large and none of the special people are near at hand to deal with them. At such times, it is up to the individual to protect himself, his loved ones, and his property. There is nothing uncivilized about a man defending himself, his loved ones, or his property. In fact, I submit that doing so is a duty to oneself and one's family, and in fact protects civilization from the predations of the uncivilized. Moreover, it is honorable to stand up to those who would do others harm. To quote Edmund Burke:

"It is not enough in a situation of trust in the commonwealth, that a man means well to his country; it is not enough that in his single person he never did an evil act, but always voted according to his conscience, and even harangued against every design which he apprehended to be prejudicial to the interests of his country. This innoxious and ineffectual character, that seems formed upon a plan of apology and disculpation, falls miserably short of the mark of public duty. That duty demands and requires that what is right should not only be made known, but made prevalent; that what is evil should not only be detected, but defeated. When the public man omits to put himself in a situation of doing his duty with effect it is an omission that frustrates the purposes of his trust almost as much as if he had formally betrayed it. It is surely no very rational account of a man's life, that he has always acted right but has taken special care to act in such a manner that his endeavours could not possibly be productive of any consequence."

Over the years the above has been redacted into the commonly heard, though not actually attributed saying, "All that is necessary for evil to triumph is for good men to do nothing."

Ultimately, every civilized being has a right and duty to personally stand against evil men when they are pressed to do so. This is not uncivilized nor is it a bad example for youth. In fact it is the highest example of taking a personal stand and personal responsibility for one's own safety and those around you. What could be a better example for our youth? Surely not the opposite - to shirk such responsibility in the hopes that others will come to our aid in our time of need? To run, to plead in the face of danger? Surely that is a bad example for our youth.

[armueller2001]

45. If most of those incidents were

domestic shootings, then it wouldn't really matter if they had a CCW or not, the crime would have happened.

[Starboard Tack]

52. You are correct. I was giving you a freebie there.

In fact I can't think of a better way to solve a family dispute. Why do you post pictures of your gun? Looks kinda puny. I know, I know, size isn't important.

[pipoman]

46. That is 25 out of every 100000 commit ANY crime

as opposed to 300 out of 100000 for the public in general. You did state earlier that ccw makes you nervous..criminals carrying guns makes rational people nervous.

[rl6214]

40. Why do you think a concealed carry holder wants to be

"Rambos running around thinking that a CCW permit transforms them into a super hero"?

I have no desire to protect you. If something were to happen I would move away from it as far as possible until I couldn't retreat any further before using my gun to protect myself.

Super hero? Not to save you, that's for sure.

[GreenStormCloud]

28. My wife has protected herself with her carry gun on a public street.

Contrary to your belief, self-defense against violent crime really does happen.

[Starboard Tack]

31. I never said self-defense against violent crime doesn't happen

Good for your wife. Presumably all went well and nobody was shot. I don't know the circumstances, but I do know that there are many devices available that women carry and use daily, that don't risk killing or maiming someone. I know several women who carry them and they aren't afraid to use their spray or alarm or taser. No hesitation, which would almost invariably be there when using a lethal weapon and that hesitation can change the whole equation real fast. I know my daughter would have a huge problem shooting a mad dog, let alone a human

[GreenStormCloud]

33. Let's take a look at those alternatives.

Alarm - She was alone. Nobody around for blocks, except her would-be attacker.

Spray - She has asthma. Sprays can trigger a violent, possibly fatal attack in her. Also the wind has to be right.

Taser - Illegal for civilian carry in some states. One shot only. Miss and you are screwed.

Stun Gun - You have to get in close enough to touch the bad guy. That's to close for an older 4'10" woman, or even for an older man such as myself.

Real Gun - If someone is threatening her life, she will shoot. Street criminals are usually pretty good at reading body language of intended victims. He correctly read that he was about two seconds away from getting shot and ran away.

[Atypical Liberal]

39. Tueller drill

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tueller_Drill

The other thing to consider when using some of these less-than-lethal self-defense tools is that many of them fail the Tueller Drill.

Someone can close a gap of 21 feet in about 1.5 seconds. Civilian tasers by law are limited to cartridges with a range of only 15 feet. Pepper sprays have a range of 9-12 feet. Hand-held tasers, of course, must be used in intimate contact with your attacker.


In addition to the range problem associated with these self-defense tools, there is the ammunition problem. Most of the ranged options offer one, maybe two shots.

I do not have a problem with people who wish to utilize such self-defense tools, as any protection is better than none. But people should be aware of their limitations.

[PavePusher]

58. Much depends on mindset and training.

If you hesitate in defense of your own life... well, evolution is a cold merciless bitch.

[Kennah]

27. And, because it's NJ, there's effectively no such thing as legal concealed carry

[rl6214]

38. "the more guns republics put out in the street "

This makes even less sense than you normally make.

YUP

YUP

YUP

[Callisto32]

42. Grammar/syntax fail.

"republics"?

It helps if you use words that....make sense.

[spin]

48. Which is why future gun control should focus on those who carry illegally ...

not on honest gun owners or those who are licensed to carry.

[Taitertots]

56. Reality proves that you are wrong

There are more guns than ever before in more places than ever before and crime is infrequent and getting less frequent.