Gang member shoots other gang member in defense

[Brain357]

Another
Clover gang member gets 20 years prison for gun, drug charges
In 2012, Polk was accused of lying to police about a fatal shooting in Clover, but both Polk and another man charged with murder had their charges dropped after York County prosecutors ruled the shooting was self-defense. The other man is serving a 10-year prison sentence after pleading guilty to a weapons charge in federal court.

 

[Brain357]

Another example
Sunday's Everett Shooting May Have Been A Shoot-Out - MY EVERETT NEWS.com

Within the past 24 hours police located the man and woman and booked them separately into the Snohomish County Jail. The man is reportedly a gang member and two-time felon and the woman also has a criminal history. Neither are legally allowed to possess a firearm.

The Snohomish County Medical Examiner has yet to identify the man killed inside the Colby house. Everett Police continue to investigate whether the shooting was self-defense or what other circumstances may be involved. No word how long that investigation may take.

 

[Brain357]

Here is another fine citizen who would claim self defense.

Gang member says fatal shooting was self-defense :: WRAL.com

 

[2aguy]

Still no proof huh liar?

The people who will have the most defenses are those being attacked the most. That group is clearly criminals.

Keep proving your an idiot.

If you think armed gang members don't defend themselves you are clearly the idiot. See the OP that is what they do.

wrong….gang members do not answer anonymous phone caller and admit they have an illegal gun and that they used the illegal gun to shoot someone even in self defense.

Why not? Criminals do lots of stupid things. Show me where one of your studies say they weren't criminals.

Kleck……his study says they were not criminals, they were law abiding people carrying guns in public without paperwork for them, not in the process of committing criminal activity.

 

[2aguy]

Here is an example of the kind of defense that are the majority of gun defenses. One gang member defending himself against other gang members.
APD: 10 accused in beating that led to fatal self-defense shooting



ALBUQUERQUE, N.M. — When a group of teenage boys and young adults who police say are in the Westside Locos gang decided to attack one of their own with baseball bats and muffler pipes last month, it didn’t end well.

Not only was one of them killed in the attack, but now many have been arrested and charged in the ambush.

The teen they attacked survived, but only because he shot and killed one of his assailants in self-defense, according to police.

Police have arrested six people — Ivan Veleta, 16, Eyzea Zamora, 16, Derek Muniz, 20, Ricardo Mones, 21, Juaquin Portillo, 21, and Kayleen Tatum, 21. And they have filed arrest warrants for four others — Jeremiah Abalos, 16, Jose Barron, 17, Raymond Prieto, 18, and Esmeralda Chavez, 21, none of whom had been arrested by Thursday evening.

Officers were called to a home near Sage and Snow Vista SW on Dec. 11 and found 20-year-old Joshua Garcia dead of a single gunshot wound to the chest. After interviewing witnesses, detectives learned that Garcia and up to 14 of his friends, all alleged Westside Loco gang members, had reportedly ambushed another gang member, 16-year-old Carl Mather, and bludgeoned him.

When detectives tracked down Mather, he had cuts all over his head and broken front teeth.

Mather told officers Garcia owed him money for heroin and he went to collect the debt at Garcia’s house on Dec. 11.

“A large group of boys began jumping over fences, running from the back yard and running up to the house from the street, attacking Carl,” a detective wrote in the complaint. “Carl stated he was trying to get to his gun to defend himself but the boys were on top of him, striking, hitting, kicking and beating him with metal pipes and bats.”

Mather fired once, and then started running.

“Carl stated he was in fear for his life because he thought he was going to be killed,” the detective wrote. “He was trying to wipe the blood from his face because he could not see out of his right eye.”

Everyone who has been arrested or is wanted in the incident is facing charges of aggravated battery with a weapon causing great bodily harm, robbery, kidnapping, attempt to commit a violent felony, assault with the intent to commit a violent felony and conspiracy, according to court records.

That is a lie brain. No study says that.

Kleck has said most are involved in criminal activity. And it's simply common sense. What study says most defenses aren't criminal on criminal?

And you know that is a lie as well….the criminal activity he specifically stated was carrying a legal gun in public without the right paperwork, not actual criminal activity…..and this is why you are vile brain….you are lying…

http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2015/02/defensive-gun-ownership-gary-kleck-response-115082.html#.VOX70cbJBW6

Thus, although survey-reported defensive gun uses themselves rarely involve criminal behavior (that is, the defender did not use the gun to commit a criminal assault or other offense), most (at least back in 1993) involved unlawful possession of a gun in a public place by the defender.

-----------
To summarize, notwithstanding DeFilippis and Hughes’ one-sided cherry-picking of the research evidence, surveys do not overestimate the number of DGUs (or anything else crime-related), and at least 18 national surveys have consistently confirmed that DGUs are very common, probably more common than criminal uses of guns.

Read what he is saying. The defender doesnt use the gun to committ a crime. In the OP the defender isn't using his gun in crime either, but is still a gang member.

If he is a convicted felon twit the mere possession of a gun makes him a criminal.

 

[Brain357]

The people who will have the most defenses are those being attacked the most. That group is clearly criminals.

Keep proving your an idiot.

If you think armed gang members don't defend themselves you are clearly the idiot. See the OP that is what they do.

wrong….gang members do not answer anonymous phone caller and admit they have an illegal gun and that they used the illegal gun to shoot someone even in self defense.

Why not? Criminals do lots of stupid things. Show me where one of your studies say they weren't criminals.

Kleck……his study says they were not criminals, they were law abiding people carrying guns in public without paperwork for them, not in the process of committing criminal activity.

He says not in the process of committing a crime. He does not claim they were otherwise law abiding. The gang member in the OP was not committing a crime at the time of the defense so he would fit klecks explanation.

 

[Brain357]

Here is an example of the kind of defense that are the majority of gun defenses. One gang member defending himself against other gang members.
APD: 10 accused in beating that led to fatal self-defense shooting



ALBUQUERQUE, N.M. — When a group of teenage boys and young adults who police say are in the Westside Locos gang decided to attack one of their own with baseball bats and muffler pipes last month, it didn’t end well.

Not only was one of them killed in the attack, but now many have been arrested and charged in the ambush.

The teen they attacked survived, but only because he shot and killed one of his assailants in self-defense, according to police.

Police have arrested six people — Ivan Veleta, 16, Eyzea Zamora, 16, Derek Muniz, 20, Ricardo Mones, 21, Juaquin Portillo, 21, and Kayleen Tatum, 21. And they have filed arrest warrants for four others — Jeremiah Abalos, 16, Jose Barron, 17, Raymond Prieto, 18, and Esmeralda Chavez, 21, none of whom had been arrested by Thursday evening.

Officers were called to a home near Sage and Snow Vista SW on Dec. 11 and found 20-year-old Joshua Garcia dead of a single gunshot wound to the chest. After interviewing witnesses, detectives learned that Garcia and up to 14 of his friends, all alleged Westside Loco gang members, had reportedly ambushed another gang member, 16-year-old Carl Mather, and bludgeoned him.

When detectives tracked down Mather, he had cuts all over his head and broken front teeth.

Mather told officers Garcia owed him money for heroin and he went to collect the debt at Garcia’s house on Dec. 11.

“A large group of boys began jumping over fences, running from the back yard and running up to the house from the street, attacking Carl,” a detective wrote in the complaint. “Carl stated he was trying to get to his gun to defend himself but the boys were on top of him, striking, hitting, kicking and beating him with metal pipes and bats.”

Mather fired once, and then started running.

“Carl stated he was in fear for his life because he thought he was going to be killed,” the detective wrote. “He was trying to wipe the blood from his face because he could not see out of his right eye.”

Everyone who has been arrested or is wanted in the incident is facing charges of aggravated battery with a weapon causing great bodily harm, robbery, kidnapping, attempt to commit a violent felony, assault with the intent to commit a violent felony and conspiracy, according to court records.

That is a lie brain. No study says that.

Kleck has said most are involved in criminal activity. And it's simply common sense. What study says most defenses aren't criminal on criminal?

And you know that is a lie as well….the criminal activity he specifically stated was carrying a legal gun in public without the right paperwork, not actual criminal activity…..and this is why you are vile brain….you are lying…

http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2015/02/defensive-gun-ownership-gary-kleck-response-115082.html#.VOX70cbJBW6

Thus, although survey-reported defensive gun uses themselves rarely involve criminal behavior (that is, the defender did not use the gun to commit a criminal assault or other offense), most (at least back in 1993) involved unlawful possession of a gun in a public place by the defender.

-----------
To summarize, notwithstanding DeFilippis and Hughes’ one-sided cherry-picking of the research evidence, surveys do not overestimate the number of DGUs (or anything else crime-related), and at least 18 national surveys have consistently confirmed that DGUs are very common, probably more common than criminal uses of guns.

Read what he is saying. The defender doesnt use the gun to committ a crime. In the OP the defender isn't using his gun in crime either, but is still a gang member.

If he is a convicted felon twit the mere possession of a gun makes him a criminal.

Carrying a gun any time it is illegal makes you a criminal.

 

[2aguy]

That is a lie brain. No study says that.

Kleck has said most are involved in criminal activity. And it's simply common sense. What study says most defenses aren't criminal on criminal?

And you know that is a lie as well….the criminal activity he specifically stated was carrying a legal gun in public without the right paperwork, not actual criminal activity…..and this is why you are vile brain….you are lying…

http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2015/02/defensive-gun-ownership-gary-kleck-response-115082.html#.VOX70cbJBW6

Thus, although survey-reported defensive gun uses themselves rarely involve criminal behavior (that is, the defender did not use the gun to commit a criminal assault or other offense), most (at least back in 1993) involved unlawful possession of a gun in a public place by the defender.

-----------
To summarize, notwithstanding DeFilippis and Hughes’ one-sided cherry-picking of the research evidence, surveys do not overestimate the number of DGUs (or anything else crime-related), and at least 18 national surveys have consistently confirmed that DGUs are very common, probably more common than criminal uses of guns.

Read what he is saying. The defender doesnt use the gun to committ a crime. In the OP the defender isn't using his gun in crime either, but is still a gang member.

If he is a convicted felon twit the mere possession of a gun makes him a criminal.

Carrying a gun any time it is illegal makes you a criminal.

No. Carrying a gun is a natural right. It is codified in the Second Amendment but isn't granted by the Amendment. If you are a dangerous criminal and through due process, you can loose that ability…but not filling out paperwork is not a crime.

 

[2aguy]

Keep proving your an idiot.

If you think armed gang members don't defend themselves you are clearly the idiot. See the OP that is what they do.

wrong….gang members do not answer anonymous phone caller and admit they have an illegal gun and that they used the illegal gun to shoot someone even in self defense.

Why not? Criminals do lots of stupid things. Show me where one of your studies say they weren't criminals.

Kleck……his study says they were not criminals, they were law abiding people carrying guns in public without paperwork for them, not in the process of committing criminal activity.

He says not in the process of committing a crime. He does not claim they were otherwise law abiding. The gang member in the OP was not committing a crime at the time of the defense so he would fit klecks explanation.

If he is a felon, which odds are he is, then he cannot legally own or carry a gun. Just having the gun is another felony, wether he uses it or not.

 

[Brain357]

Kleck has said most are involved in criminal activity. And it's simply common sense. What study says most defenses aren't criminal on criminal?

And you know that is a lie as well….the criminal activity he specifically stated was carrying a legal gun in public without the right paperwork, not actual criminal activity…..and this is why you are vile brain….you are lying…

http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2015/02/defensive-gun-ownership-gary-kleck-response-115082.html#.VOX70cbJBW6

Thus, although survey-reported defensive gun uses themselves rarely involve criminal behavior (that is, the defender did not use the gun to commit a criminal assault or other offense), most (at least back in 1993) involved unlawful possession of a gun in a public place by the defender.

-----------
To summarize, notwithstanding DeFilippis and Hughes’ one-sided cherry-picking of the research evidence, surveys do not overestimate the number of DGUs (or anything else crime-related), and at least 18 national surveys have consistently confirmed that DGUs are very common, probably more common than criminal uses of guns.

Read what he is saying. The defender doesnt use the gun to committ a crime. In the OP the defender isn't using his gun in crime either, but is still a gang member.

If he is a convicted felon twit the mere possession of a gun makes him a criminal.

Carrying a gun any time it is illegal makes you a criminal.

No. Carrying a gun is a natural right. It is codified in the Second Amendment but isn't granted by the Amendment. If you are a dangerous criminal and through due process, you can loose that ability…but not filling out paperwork is not a crime.

No if you are carrying a gun when it is illegal you are a criminals. Criminals break laws.

 

[Brain357]

If you think armed gang members don't defend themselves you are clearly the idiot. See the OP that is what they do.

wrong….gang members do not answer anonymous phone caller and admit they have an illegal gun and that they used the illegal gun to shoot someone even in self defense.

Why not? Criminals do lots of stupid things. Show me where one of your studies say they weren't criminals.

Kleck……his study says they were not criminals, they were law abiding people carrying guns in public without paperwork for them, not in the process of committing criminal activity.

He says not in the process of committing a crime. He does not claim they were otherwise law abiding. The gang member in the OP was not committing a crime at the time of the defense so he would fit klecks explanation.

If he is a felon, which odds are he is, then he cannot legally own or carry a gun. Just having the gun is another felony, wether he uses it or not.

And he still fits into what kleck says. He was not using his gun to committ a crime at the time of the defense, but is still a gang member.

 

[2aguy]

And you know that is a lie as well….the criminal activity he specifically stated was carrying a legal gun in public without the right paperwork, not actual criminal activity…..and this is why you are vile brain….you are lying…

http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2015/02/defensive-gun-ownership-gary-kleck-response-115082.html#.VOX70cbJBW6

Thus, although survey-reported defensive gun uses themselves rarely involve criminal behavior (that is, the defender did not use the gun to commit a criminal assault or other offense), most (at least back in 1993) involved unlawful possession of a gun in a public place by the defender.

-----------
To summarize, notwithstanding DeFilippis and Hughes’ one-sided cherry-picking of the research evidence, surveys do not overestimate the number of DGUs (or anything else crime-related), and at least 18 national surveys have consistently confirmed that DGUs are very common, probably more common than criminal uses of guns.

Read what he is saying. The defender doesnt use the gun to committ a crime. In the OP the defender isn't using his gun in crime either, but is still a gang member.

If he is a convicted felon twit the mere possession of a gun makes him a criminal.

Carrying a gun any time it is illegal makes you a criminal.

No. Carrying a gun is a natural right. It is codified in the Second Amendment but isn't granted by the Amendment. If you are a dangerous criminal and through due process, you can loose that ability…but not filling out paperwork is not a crime.

No if you are carrying a gun when it is illegal you are a criminals. Criminals break laws.

Nope. Normal, law abiding people carrying a gun without paperwork, are not criminals. They have been denied access to a Right.

 

[2aguy]

wrong….gang members do not answer anonymous phone caller and admit they have an illegal gun and that they used the illegal gun to shoot someone even in self defense.

Why not? Criminals do lots of stupid things. Show me where one of your studies say they weren't criminals.

Kleck……his study says they were not criminals, they were law abiding people carrying guns in public without paperwork for them, not in the process of committing criminal activity.

He says not in the process of committing a crime. He does not claim they were otherwise law abiding. The gang member in the OP was not committing a crime at the time of the defense so he would fit klecks explanation.

If he is a felon, which odds are he is, then he cannot legally own or carry a gun. Just having the gun is another felony, wether he uses it or not.

And he still fits into what kleck says. He was not using his gun to committ a crime at the time of the defense, but is still a gang member.

Wrong….he is a felon in possession of a gun. Kleck said that the only crime committed by the people in his study would be carrying a gun without a license…and this was in the 90s before concealed and open carry was passed in all of the states.

 

[Brain357]

Read what he is saying. The defender doesnt use the gun to committ a crime. In the OP the defender isn't using his gun in crime either, but is still a gang member.

If he is a convicted felon twit the mere possession of a gun makes him a criminal.

Carrying a gun any time it is illegal makes you a criminal.

No. Carrying a gun is a natural right. It is codified in the Second Amendment but isn't granted by the Amendment. If you are a dangerous criminal and through due process, you can loose that ability…but not filling out paperwork is not a crime.

No if you are carrying a gun when it is illegal you are a criminals. Criminals break laws.

Nope. Normal, law abiding people carrying a gun without paperwork, are not criminals. They have been denied access to a Right.

Anyone breaking a law is by definition a criminal. Nice try though.

 

[2aguy]

If he is a convicted felon twit the mere possession of a gun makes him a criminal.

Carrying a gun any time it is illegal makes you a criminal.

No. Carrying a gun is a natural right. It is codified in the Second Amendment but isn't granted by the Amendment. If you are a dangerous criminal and through due process, you can loose that ability…but not filling out paperwork is not a crime.

No if you are carrying a gun when it is illegal you are a criminals. Criminals break laws.

Nope. Normal, law abiding people carrying a gun without paperwork, are not criminals. They have been denied access to a Right.

Anyone breaking a law is by definition a criminal. Nice try though.

Wrong…..tell that to Rosa Parks….and Reverend Martin Luther King Jr……...

 

[Brain357]

Why not? Criminals do lots of stupid things. Show me where one of your studies say they weren't criminals.

Kleck……his study says they were not criminals, they were law abiding people carrying guns in public without paperwork for them, not in the process of committing criminal activity.

He says not in the process of committing a crime. He does not claim they were otherwise law abiding. The gang member in the OP was not committing a crime at the time of the defense so he would fit klecks explanation.

If he is a felon, which odds are he is, then he cannot legally own or carry a gun. Just having the gun is another felony, wether he uses it or not.

And he still fits into what kleck says. He was not using his gun to committ a crime at the time of the defense, but is still a gang member.

Wrong….he is a felon in possession of a gun. Kleck said that the only crime committed by the people in his study would be carrying a gun without a license…and this was in the 90s before concealed and open carry was passed in all of the states.

At the time of the defense yes, just like the gang member in the OP.

 

[Brain357]

Carrying a gun any time it is illegal makes you a criminal.

No. Carrying a gun is a natural right. It is codified in the Second Amendment but isn't granted by the Amendment. If you are a dangerous criminal and through due process, you can loose that ability…but not filling out paperwork is not a crime.

No if you are carrying a gun when it is illegal you are a criminals. Criminals break laws.

Nope. Normal, law abiding people carrying a gun without paperwork, are not criminals. They have been denied access to a Right.

Anyone breaking a law is by definition a criminal. Nice try though.

Wrong…..tell that to Rosa Parks….and Reverend Martin Luther King Jr……...

That would be difficult. Sorry you can't change the definition of criminal. Talk to websters.

 

[2aguy]

Kleck……his study says they were not criminals, they were law abiding people carrying guns in public without paperwork for them, not in the process of committing criminal activity.

He says not in the process of committing a crime. He does not claim they were otherwise law abiding. The gang member in the OP was not committing a crime at the time of the defense so he would fit klecks explanation.

If he is a felon, which odds are he is, then he cannot legally own or carry a gun. Just having the gun is another felony, wether he uses it or not.

And he still fits into what kleck says. He was not using his gun to committ a crime at the time of the defense, but is still a gang member.

Wrong….he is a felon in possession of a gun. Kleck said that the only crime committed by the people in his study would be carrying a gun without a license…and this was in the 90s before concealed and open carry was passed in all of the states.

At the time of the defense yes, just like the gang member in the OP.

Nope…a gang member is a criminal by profession. A normal, law abiding citizen who has the right to bear arms who carries a gun without the right paper work is not. Charging a fee for a license or requiring training before you can exercise a Right is no different than requiring a poll tax and a literacy test to vote.

 

[Brain357]

He says not in the process of committing a crime. He does not claim they were otherwise law abiding. The gang member in the OP was not committing a crime at the time of the defense so he would fit klecks explanation.

If he is a felon, which odds are he is, then he cannot legally own or carry a gun. Just having the gun is another felony, wether he uses it or not.

And he still fits into what kleck says. He was not using his gun to committ a crime at the time of the defense, but is still a gang member.

Wrong….he is a felon in possession of a gun. Kleck said that the only crime committed by the people in his study would be carrying a gun without a license…and this was in the 90s before concealed and open carry was passed in all of the states.

At the time of the defense yes, just like the gang member in the OP.

Nope…a gang member is a criminal by profession. A normal, law abiding citizen who has the right to bear arms who carries a gun without the right paper work is not. Charging a fee for a license or requiring training before you can exercise a Right is no different than requiring a poll tax and a literacy test to vote.

So? Kleck doesn't specify anything about professional criminal. He states illegal possession is the only crime at the time of the defense. That would be the case for the gang member in the OP.

 

[Brain357]

He says not in the process of committing a crime. He does not claim they were otherwise law abiding. The gang member in the OP was not committing a crime at the time of the defense so he would fit klecks explanation.

If he is a felon, which odds are he is, then he cannot legally own or carry a gun. Just having the gun is another felony, wether he uses it or not.

And he still fits into what kleck says. He was not using his gun to committ a crime at the time of the defense, but is still a gang member.

Wrong….he is a felon in possession of a gun. Kleck said that the only crime committed by the people in his study would be carrying a gun without a license…and this was in the 90s before concealed and open carry was passed in all of the states.

At the time of the defense yes, just like the gang member in the OP.

Nope…a gang member is a criminal by profession. A normal, law abiding citizen who has the right to bear arms who carries a gun without the right paper work is not. Charging a fee for a license or requiring training before you can exercise a Right is no different than requiring a poll tax and a literacy test to vote.

You should consider being a politician. You try to go around the facts just like one.