Uptown robbers target the wrong guy (They jumped a 61 year old ex-marine)

[shadowrider]

The Uptown robbers struck again Tuesday night, only this time their victim was armed, police say.

Edward Curtis, 61, who described himself to police as an ex-Marine, fired several shots at a group of men who attacked him as he got out of his car near his apartment, according to police records. Curtis thinks he may have struck one of the men, said Minneapolis Police Lt. Mike Fossum.

"He had just parked his car in the parking lot," said Fossum. "These guys blitzed him. They just started kicking his ass. He managed to get off three rounds."

The suspects, one a heavyset Hispanic man and another a thinner Hispanic man, ran off but may have been injured, police said.

http://www.startribune.com/local/minneapolis/121637649.html

I don't know why this victim had to use a gun. He should have just used his fists or martial arts training
:sarcasm:

[X_Digger]

1. Or mace! Better yet, an air horn! Yah, that's the ticket. n/t

[TPaine7]

2. Guns are a menace...

Criminals need a safe working environment too.

We need an OSHA for violent felons, kind of like the Brady Campaign or VPC, but part of government. I know, let the Center for Disease Control do "science" in the interest of propaganda! That should help felons achieve safe working conditions.

[socialist_n_TN]

3. What do you guys have against martial arts training?

Martial arts training gives you an entire RANGE of options in a physical confrontation rather than just one.

[X_Digger]

5. Not a thing.. having a poke at the people who expect others to limit themselves to such for defense.

n/t

[Katya Mullethov]

6. I found myself in the same scenario as he

But I presented a shotgun , and they fled .

[ProgressiveProfessor]

7. Prior posters have stated that martial arts training means no one needs a gun to defend themselves.

I have instructed for years in both firearms and martial arts. Both have their place and roles.

[rl6214]

9. Yeah, especially for a 61 year old man.

[Hoyt]

17. Lot's of folks that age see no need to pack. Probably in excess of 95% don't need a gun.

[rl6214]

20. Yeah, you're right

It's better that they get beaten and robbed.

[Hoyt]

23. Apparently they think so, RL. 95% can't be wrong.

[rl6214]

31. I'm not gonna post the data showing the number of attacks

muggings and murders per year because I know you've seen it and will just dismiss it like you always do.

People carry guns to defend themselves if there is a need and are going to continue to do so until the need goes away. When you can tell us there are no more muggers or murderers or just nutjobs out there that would do us bodily harm then we won't have a need to carry a gun and won't do it anymore.

Make sure you let me know when that happens.

[Hoyt]

37. Yea, show the stats for people (95%+) who don't pack and still walk in public without puckering.

If you'd quit looking at stats and stuff, you might become more rational on your need to pack. I'm not suggesting you cut it off cold-turkey, but dang, think about weaning off some of that junk.

[friendly_iconoclast]

40. "If you'd quit looking at stats and stuff, you might become more rational..."

That just kind of says it all right there, doesn't it?

[Hoyt]

41. Yep, keep your head buried in that stuff and you can't see what's really going on. Forrest & Trees.

[eqfan592]

48. Ummmm, yeah.....

...see, what you just said makes absolutely zero sense. Facts and statistics about the world around us are one of the primary ways of us knowing the overall state of our environment and the world around us, a task which is made next to impossible to do effectively without them, at least not objectively, as we would be limited only to our own personal experiences. So in reality, you can't possibly see what is going on WITHOUT "that stuff," not the other way around.

[beevul]

56. Yep. Says everything anyone needs to know.

Yup.

Yup.

Yup.

[X_Digger]

44. That word, you keep using it.. I do not think it means what you think it means..

"quit looking at stats.. more rational"....?

ra·tion·al/ˈraSHənl/
Adjective: Based on or in accordance with reason or logic

[rl6214]

47. where do you get this 95% from, you just pull it from your

thin air?

Come on, show us where it comes from. Cite or BS.

[rrneck]

50. Well, I wouldn't exactly say "thin air" nt

[Hoyt]

51. You guys tell us at 8-10 million tote. 10M/310M? = what %? You got a better number?

Maybe if you didn't hang around gotahaveagunnerstofunctioninpublic, you'd have some perspective.

[eqfan592]

65. Ummmm....

...did you actually do the math? 10M/310M =/= 5/95. So check your weak attempt at wit at the door until you gain a bit of perspective (and math skills) yourself. And besides, while only a very small percentage actually carry, a far larger percentage support the right to carry and apparently feel safer because of it.

[Hoyt]

66. OK, I was wrong -- it's closer to 3.2% that carry. Jeez, I had it in your favor and you still beach.

So, as a rough estimate -- 96.8% don't carry, don't see the need for it, are not afraid to leave home without one or two, etc. Happy now?

[eqfan592]

71. Way to ignore the entire second half of my post.

So not only are you bad at math (which only was pointed out because of your need to try and poke fun at another posters math skills) but you lack basic reading comprehension. I'll say it once again, simply because somebody doesn't carry themselves does not mean they don't support the right for others to do so. Additionally, simply because somebody DOES carry does not mean they are "afraid to leave the home without one or two." I buckle my seat belt every time I drive my car, but that doesn't mean I drive in constant fear of getting into a car accident.

[Hoyt]

73. Law says you have to buckle up. Law doesn.t say you have to carry, that's why few rational folks do

Most people do not see the need to carry -- and it's close to 95%. We can argue over a percentage or two if you like, but that's a pretty good benchmark.

[eqfan592]

75. Actually, New Hampshire has no seat bealt law...

..but really, both you and I know that seat belt laws are entirely beside the point. But if it makes you happy, replace seat belts with fire extinguishers, which many people keep in their homes, and the same point is made.

So really, what point are you attempting to make with the percentiles anyway? Are you trying to say that simply because so many don't exercise a right, that the right shouldn't exist? Or are you simply trying to paint those that do carry in as negative a light as possible? My guess is that it's the latter. What you fail to realize is that there are many who simply don't feel comfortable about having a firearm on their person, but they also respect the right of others to do so. Just because you couldn't handle it, Hoyt, is no reason to try and strip others of their right to do so, nor is it a reason to try and make those people out to be some boogieman on the fringe of society.

[DWC]

99. That "safety in the herd mentality"

makes excellent pickings for the predators and crazies in our society.

I personally will not be an easy or willing victim.

Semper Fi,

[Euromutt]

101. Do you have ANY evidence for those claims

96.8% don't carry, don't see the need for it, are not afraid to leave home without one or two, etc. Happy now?

Well, no. Because the fact that ~300 million inhabitants of the United States don't possess a CCW permit is not evidence that none of them carry, none of them "see the need for it" etc.

For starters, among that 96.8% who don't have CCW permits are individuals who can't get one because they're part of the 6.5% of the U.S. population that have one or more felony convictions to their name. Given that an overwhelming percentage of firearm homicides are committed by individuals with a prior criminal record, it's not a huge stretch to conclude that some of them are carrying illegally.

There are probably quite a few individuals who carry illegally because they're involved in the illicit drugs trade, and even though they have no criminal convictions, they're under 21 and couldn't get a permit even in a "shall issue" state.

The population that doesn't have CCW permits also includes residents of non-issue states (Illinois and, for now, Wisconsin) and restrictive "may issue" states (e.g. California, New Jersey, Maryland, New York). The fact that there are movements afoot to get permit laws changed in a number of these states is evidence that some people who don't have CCW permits do want one.

And then there's Vermont, where you can't get a CCW permit because state law doesn't require it; if you're legal to own a firearm in Vermont, you can carry it concealed. Admittedly, Vermont's a pretty small state, so we're not talking a lot of people, but it does form evidence that not everyone who doesn't have a CCW permit doesn't carry.

So, no matter how fond you are of repeating this fabrication of yours, it's still a fabrication, created by taking evidence of one fact as evidence of a raft of others. I've called you on this claim repeatedly without getting a response (let alone a rebuttal) and yet you keep repeating it, thread after thread. Are you a bit lacking in the courage of your conviction, perhaps? I would be, if I knew that what I was claiming was horseshit.

[cleanhippie]

91. "If you'd quit looking at stats and stuff, you might become more rational" - BOOKMARKING!!!!!

One of your best yet, Hoyt.


Thanks again for reminding me why your opinions have ZERO credibility.

[beevul]

55. Do you doubt that 95% never supported slavery ?

Wrong much?

[Hoyt]

67. We aren't talking slavery here -- although gun toters used guns to imprison slaves.

Where I live, they used guns to discriminate well into the 1970s (and the TBaggers who carry are still using them for that purpose). Chit, we had a racist gubnor who chased minorities down the street with a gun and/or baseball bat well into the 1960s. That's enough to illustrate how guns in public are wrong.

Fact is, more than 95% of the population does not see the need to carry a gun or two in public.

[beevul]

70. Your own words hoyt - "95% can't be wrong"

If you start to turn blue choking on them, I'm sure someone will think about giving you the heimlich.

[Atypical Liberal]

26. Most people don't need seat belts, either.

Or smoke detectors, or carbon monoxide detectors, or first aid kits, etc. etc. etc.

But the cost of the tools are cheap compared to needing them and not having them.

[Hoyt]

45. You carry a defibrillator. You are more likely to need that than an gun.

[Atypical Liberal]

52. A great idea, but that is a false dichotomy.

You carry a defibrillator. You are more likely to need that than an gun.

As the cost, size, and ease of use of automatic defibrillators improve, more and more people probably will carry them, if not in their person, at least in their cars. AEDs have been shown to have tremendous potential, and their use and availability in public places is becoming more and more common. For the private individual they are still a bit pricy, but one day they will probably be as ubiquitous as first aid kits.

You are right - this is a great example of yet another tool that man has available for use in the rare occurrence of someone around you having a heart attack.

But to imply that you should carry a defibrillator instead of a gun is a false dichotomy. There is no reason why man should not avail himself to both tools for the rare cases when they may be needed. The defibrillator, like firearms, is just another tool for use in time of crisis.

[Hoyt]

68. OK -- carrying a gun to kill is more important to some than carrying equipment to save. I get it.

[Atypical Liberal]

69. Like I said - that is a false dichotomy.

OK -- carrying a gun to kill is more important to some than carrying equipment to save. I get it.

No one claimed that. Again, you are setting up a false dichotomy. No one is saying it is more important to carry a gun than an AED, or vice versa. People should be free to carry either one as it suits them. Both are tools for use in the rare event of a crisis. Everyone should feel free to equip themselves with such tools as best they may.

[eqfan592]

72. Not to mention that the vast majority of people that carry a gun...

...don't carry them to "kill" as hoyt claims. The hope of just about every person that hold a permit to carry is that they will never need make use of it, and I'm willing to bet that those same people hope that if they do ever have to use it, it doesn't end up with any shots fired, much less anybody being killed.

[Hoyt]

74. Yea, that explains hi-cap mags, people carrying two guns (real fear), practicing on silhouette

targets, special loads, etc. I think most obsessed gunners really are looking for an excuse to shoot someone. You see posters here applauding shooting an unarmed person in the back who broke into a car (to steal a piece of gum or whatever).

I will grant you that some gunners use them for intimidation, rather than killing.

[eqfan592]

76. Wow, you just don't get it, do you?

You practice on a silhouette because if you DO have to use it, that's what you'll be shooting at. Two guns and hi-cap mags is a purely a matter of personal preference, and has its pluses and minuses as far as carrying, something you would know if you were to bother to do a bit of actual research on the subject. But it has nothing to do with "real fear" as you claim. And what about special loads? You mean loads that are designed to dump as much of their energy into the target as possible to avoid over-penetration, which can be a serious issue if you are forced to use your gun in public (which is also the reason why you use hollow points and not FMJ ammo in a carry gun generally)?

You see hoyt, "preparedness" is simply a foreign concept to you if my guess is right, and the mindset that goes along with it. You view it as "fear" but fear doesn't really play much a part in it for the vast majority of people that carry. It's about being prepared to deal with that nightmare scenario, and the unwillingness to chance your and your families safety on the hope that "somebody" will be there to help you should you need it. You carry as much as you can comfortably to deal with that scenario, and you carry a load that will get the job done in a way that reduces the risks to others that might be in the area, and then you hope you never ever have to make use of it.

[Atypical Liberal]

79. Yeah, one minute he's berating lack of accuracy...

And the next minute he's berating good training.

[Hoyt]

82. You can't train adequately for those situation and none of you will shoot straight in the unlikely

event you luck up on an opportunity to show your marksmanship and cool.

[Atypical Liberal]

84. So?

Even if this were true, which anyone familiar with training knows it isn't, since CCW carriers hardly ever are involved in crime, why not at least give them the chance to resist their attackers by some means other than a physical contest of strength?

[friendly_iconoclast]

95. Kindly inform local law enforcement of your insight, O wise one.

They can dispense with the firearms, ammunition, and training budget since it's impossible to shoot straight....

[Hoyt]

80. Yea, those paper targets are shooting back at you. You'd do better shooting wild hogs.

"Preparedness"? How funny. 95% of population gets along fine without a gun in public.

[Atypical Liberal]

85. Yes, we get it - most people don't need guns.

95% of the population never will change a flat tire, either. 95% of the population will never have a house fire. 95% of the population will never suffer from carbon monoxide poisoning.

This does not mean people should not have the choice to avail themselves to the tools needed in these crisis situations.

[oneshooter]

86. " those paper targets are shooting back at you" Hoyt, have you ever been shot at? n/t

[cleanhippie]

94. Oh, he gets it, he just prefers to act like child.

Its what he does.

[Euromutt]

102. I think there's a reason for that

Notice Hoyt has been spelling "shit" as "chit" lately? I suspect his parents installed a profanity filter on the family computer.

[Atypical Liberal]

78. You must get tired moving those goalposts around.

Yea, that explains hi-cap mags, people carrying two guns (real fear), practicing on silhouette targets, special loads, etc.

Many police officers use hi-capacity magazines, carry a backup gun, and practice on silhouette targets. If there is nothing wrong with a police officer doing these things, there is nothing wrong with civilians doing them, either.

However, I don't know any civilian who carries a concealed firearm who carries more than one.

Also, the usual advice for self-defense weapons is to use the same ammunition as your local police do, to minimize having to defend your ammunition choice in front of a jury.


I think most obsessed gunners really are looking for an excuse to shoot someone.

And people who wear seat belts are really looking for an excuse to have a car accident.

You see posters here applauding shooting an unarmed person in the back who broke into a car (to steal a piece of gum or whatever).

I have no problem with the use of deadly force in defense of property. Everything I own represents a portion of my life that is gone forever. When you steal my television from me, you are stealing the hours of labor I invested to obtain it. Those hours of my life are precious to me, and certainly worth more to me than the life of a common thief. You may not agree with this stance but in my opinion the onus is on the would-be thief to decide if he values his own life more than whatever property he is aiming to steal.

[Hoyt]

81. You are not law enforcement, nor judge or jury or executioner. You may be a wannabe.

Like I said, folks here will shoot some unarmed kid in the back for breaking into their car and stealing a piece of gum. That's the main reason people should not carry.

[Atypical Liberal]

83. If it's good enough for the government, it's good enough for me.

Basically what you are saying is you trust law enforcement, but you don't trust citizens, despite the overwhelming evidence that shows citizens with concealed carry permits don't cause problems.

This is irrational.

[Hoyt]

87. 200+ million who don't tote, but could get permit, are just as lawful and also respectful of society

[eqfan592]

88. You do realize...

....that this particular argument you keep making is one of the most idiotic I've ever seen, right? "We should take the right away because most people don't make use of it." Yeah, that makes a load of sense.....

[Hoyt]

89. You do realize, most don't tote because they know it's not necessary, not good for society or future

generations, etc. Nor does it set a good example for people.

[eqfan592]

92. If that were the case...

...then concealed carry wouldn't have the sort of popular support it does. Many may choose not to carry for their own reasons, but "it's not good for society or future generations" are not among them for the majority of those people (mainly because those are bullshit reasons to begin with).

[Hoyt]

93. It is popular because TBaggers and a few others are pushing it. Everyone else just shake their head.

[eqfan592]

97. LOL

Yeah, because most states got CCW laws on the books only since the TBagger movement. Oh wait, actually, that's not even close to true. Yeah, nice try though. Seriously, even if they DID all just come around recently, the TB movement isn't close to strong enough to bring about the sort of popular support that exists for concealed carry. You just can't STAND that you're in the minority on this issue, eh?

[Atypical Liberal]

90. Yes, this is true.

It is true that most citizens, including most firearm owners, but especially concealed carry permit holders, are law abiding and respectful of society.

Consequently, there is no reason to disallow them to carry a firearm.

[oneshooter]

27. Cite to proof. You declared it YOU PROOVE IT!! n/t

[Hoyt]

42. Prove what. What do you think the percentage of toters is to relevant population?

5% is actually high. So there's your proof, unless you have some other information.

[GreenStormCloud]

33. I am solidly in the 5% that doesn't want to be beaten and robbed., N/T

[Hoyt]

43. 100% are in that category. You are in 5% that need to reassess their fears/need/desires/obsession.

[eqfan592]

49. Yeah, because taking steps to defend yourself effectively...

...means you need to reassess your fears. THAT makes sense.....not.

[Atypical Liberal]

25. But it's still a physical contest of strength.

Martial arts training gives you an entire RANGE of options in a physical confrontation rather than just one.

As a martial artist, I can say that any option of resistance without a firearm is still going to be a physical contest of strength against your attacker(s).

Without firearms, the weak are always at the mercy of the strong.

[slackmaster]

59. Defensive use of a firearm IS a martial art

HTH

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

64. Matial arts: (hth)

<< http://www.a-human-right.com/martial.html >>

[rrneck]

4. Bust that ass with those natural fighting skills. nt

[DWC]

8. Don't mess with old people,

particularly veterans and most particularly former Marines !

There are more than 25 million veterans in America. Our government trained us well in the use of firearms to defend our country. Anyone who thinks we will not use firearms to defend ourselves needs to have a serious reality check.

Semper Fi,

[Katya Mullethov]

13. If you want to kick a tiger in the ass

You better have a plan for dealing with his teeth .


"'The group of about a dozen cruise-ship passengers were climbing out of their vehicle Wednesday when the masked trio – one with a gun, the others with knives – attacked.

Suddenly, one of the tourists, a former U.S. marine in his 70s, pounced on the gunman and put him in a headlock, breaking his collarbone before eventually killing him, according to Limon police chief Luis Hernandez.

"His neck was completely snapped," Hernandez said."

[Spinny Liberal]

10. Glad he was packing

Good to stand up to thugs.

[shadowrider]

11. I'm getting up there and have physical limitations.

There is no way I could physically confront or defend myself against two younger guys. So, I pack.

[Spinny Liberal]

14. Good for you.

Self defense is important

[Sonoman]

12. I hope he tagged a couple of them.

Chickenshits.

Sonoman

[lawodevolution]

15. Rec

[Hoyt]

16. Wonder where the other 2 bullets that missed went in the apartment complex.

Glad the X-Marine is safe, but he ought to take some good gun training for civilians. If you can't hit your target, don't go shooting up the apartment complex.

Since the attackers were apparently unarmed, I'm not sure shooting up the neighborhood was appropriate.

[DWC]

19. No on ever erected a statue for a critic.

But I can show you exceptional statues erected for Marines.

Semper Fi,

[Hoyt]

21. And deservedly so. But, being a Marine or God doesn't excuse blasting away like that.

Obviously, you missed the point.

My best buddy, Marine Vietnam vet, doesn't even have a gun -- he can't understand those who pack or adore the dang things either.

[friendly_iconoclast]

30. Yes, Hoyt, we are aware that you know just what to do in *any* situation involving guns.

I take it that was part of Advanced Keyboard Commando training. What was the MOS code for that, anyway?

[Hoyt]

36. Sounds like you with all that gun training. Do you carry one or two when you venture out?

[friendly_iconoclast]

38. No, I do not own a gun. I also do not believe that I can discern why others do what they do.

Nor do I feel I can accurately tell others what they might or might not require for their personal safety.

That makes one of us.

[Name removed]

22. Deleted message

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

[Name removed]

24. Deleted message

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Atypical Liberal]

28. Do you have such high expectations for the police?

Even the police miss their targets some 70% of the time.

[oneshooter]

29. Have you ever been shot at? n/t

[ileus]

I don't understand why he attacked those poor innocent guys with a mean ole gun.

They should sue...

[Starboard Tack]

32. Rah! Rah! Rah! One for the Gipper! Right. No mention of them having guns.

Wonder why he kept shooting as they ran away. Is that some new kind of Marine training? Shoot them in the back and fuck any collateral damage. Wonder what he was carrying that needed a gun to protect. Or were they just the marauding thugs we keep hearing about who finally showed up in MN.
Semper Fi

[friendly_iconoclast]

34. -2 for reading comprehension failure. 1) No indication he fired on them as they were fleeing

2) It makes no difference if they had guns or not, a 3 on 1 attack can be fatal to the victim even if the attackers only have

fists and feet to work with- about 4% of murders in the US are committed with precisely those 'weapons'.


Sadly, bigotry has clouded your thought processes.

[Starboard Tack]

39. I would probably emptied the gun firing at these assholes if I'd been in his shoes

So fail me on misreading, my bad. But you can rub the insults in your chest. I have no idea what bigotry does to your thought processes.

[petronius]

46. "rub the insults in your chest"?

Is that a colloquialism of some sort? I've never heard it before...

(And no, I'm not snarking - regional and ethnic sayings are interesting to me.)

[Starboard Tack]

53. Urban Dictionary

Rub It On Your Chest

Another way of saying "whatever" if someone says something you dont care much to hear.
Person 1: I think you should apologize for what you said....
Person 2: Rub it on your chest.

[GreenStormCloud]

35. Stop twisting the story to suit your agenda.

There is nothing in the story that said he shot them as they were running away. They attacked him and were kicking his ass. Most likely had had been knocked to the ground in which case he would have been firing upwards. The three shots were likely very rapid fire. The thugs then began to run away and he ceased firing.

You are so eager to paint gun carriers in an evil light that you will twist and distort an episode of valid self-defense to make it look like the old guy was attacking the three perps.

[Starboard Tack]

60. Sorry, my bad. I already apologized. Shame on me. I jumped the gun

[oneshooter]

54. The words Semper Fi coming from you is an insult to Marines everywhere. n/t

[Starboard Tack]

61. Not the marines I know and that's quite a few.

Funny thing is, now I come to think of it, not one of them totes. Same for the ex-Navy Seals I know. Good guys, every one of them.

[beevul]

57. His life just isn't enough, is it.

"Wonder what he was carrying that needed a gun to protect."

His life just isn't enough, is it.


Just a suggestion...but you might actually try thinking before you post.

[Starboard Tack]

62. Thanks. I'll try harder next time.

[ileus]

58. Wonder what he was carrying that needed a gun to protect: His person ?

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

63. RE: Wonder what he was carrying that needed a gun to protect.

Don't you think it's rather insulting to imply that there is a possession more worthy protection than one's own life and safety?

[Starboard Tack]

98. Yes, if I were implying that

[ileus]

18. dup

[Logical]

77. And this folks is why we need CCW laws. Yup!! n-t

[Glassunion]

96. This is all bullshit!!!

There is no such thing as an "Ex-Marine". They don't exist.

[LibertyFox]

100. Was thinking the same thing.