1
   

Law Abiding Gun Owners Protect Customer From Bad Guy

 
 
woiyo
 
Reply Tue 29 Apr, 2008 11:34 am
Here is a good argument for arming the citizens and training them properly.

http://www.palmbeachpost.com/localnews/content/local_news/epaper/2008/04/29/0429groceryguns.html

WEST PALM BEACH - It could've been a typical spat between grocery store customer and manager, with the customer announcing he planned to take his business elsewhere. But then the customer drew his gun. The store manager drew his and so did the assistant manager.

It all happened at 5 p.m. Monday at the IGA Supermarket at 1000 36th St. in West Palm Beach. And in the end, West Palm Beach police arrested customer Marshall Hugo Grant for attempted first-degree murder, shooting into an occupied dwelling, aggravated assault with a firearm and carrying a concealed firearm.

Police reported Tuesday morning that Grant, 73, entered the store through the exit despite manager Marino Hernandez's warning not to enter that way. The confrontation escalated, Grant drew a handgun; assistant manager Roberto Espinal drew his handgun. Hernandez also pulled a gun. Grant backed out of the store, firing three times as he went, the arrest report states.

The managers, who witnesses said never returned fire, ended up surrounding Grant, who hid behind a vehicle while continuing to fire, according to the police report. Grant eventually surrendered his weapon to the managers, once they told him police were on their way.

Grant appeared Tuesday morning before Judge Nancy Perez, who ordered him held without bond while he undergoes a psychiatric examination."

How many people were saved by these 2 men's efforts?
  • Topic Stats
  • Top Replies
  • Link to this Topic
Type: Discussion • Score: 1 • Views: 1,609 • Replies: 38
No top replies

 
ebrown p
 
  1  
Reply Tue 29 Apr, 2008 11:39 am
How many people were put at risk by allowing Mr. Grant to have a handgun?

It seems to me that keeping Mr. Grant from owning a handgun would be a good idea.
0 Replies
 
joefromchicago
 
  1  
Reply Tue 29 Apr, 2008 11:46 am
ebrown_p wrote:
How many people were put at risk by allowing Mr. Grant to have a handgun?

Touché.
0 Replies
 
woiyo
 
  1  
Reply Tue 29 Apr, 2008 12:15 pm
ebrown_p wrote:
How many people were put at risk by allowing Mr. Grant to have a handgun?

It seems to me that keeping Mr. Grant from owning a handgun would be a good idea.


Maybe he stole it from somewhere/one. Obviously, the bad guys will figure out a way to carry out their crime. Unfortunately, as long as there are gun makers in the world, guns will be made.

Maybe you should take you line of bullsh!t and stand in front of the gun manufacturers and ask them to stop making guns.
0 Replies
 
Setanta
 
  1  
Reply Tue 29 Apr, 2008 12:20 pm
The thread title makes absolutely no sense. Who was the customer protected from a "bad guy" by law-abiding citizens? Why are gun owners always described as "law-abiding citizens?" Do you know for a fact that none of the people involved has ever broken the law? Just what the hell sense is this thread supposed to make?
0 Replies
 
woiyo
 
  1  
Reply Tue 29 Apr, 2008 12:45 pm
Setanta wrote:
The thread title makes absolutely no sense. Who was the customer protected from a "bad guy" by law-abiding citizens? Why are gun owners always described as "law-abiding citizens?" Do you know for a fact that none of the people involved has ever broken the law? Just what the hell sense is this thread supposed to make?


How about the patrons IN the store? Were they not at risk from the bad guy?

Because they had a license to carry, so in fact, they were obeying ht elaw.

Go back to sleep you old grouch!
0 Replies
 
ebrown p
 
  1  
Reply Tue 29 Apr, 2008 12:48 pm
This guy ended up shooting wildly outside the store because two other law-abiding guys pulled guns.

Shots were fired and patrons were at risk.

If none of these three guy had handguns, the patrons would not have been at risk.
0 Replies
 
woiyo
 
  1  
Reply Tue 29 Apr, 2008 12:58 pm
ebrown_p wrote:
This guy ended up shooting wildly outside the store because two other law-abiding guys pulled guns.

Shots were fired and patrons were at risk.

If none of these three guy had handguns, the patrons would not have been at risk.


So go make the manufacturers stop making guns.

The 2 managers helped subdue a criminal.
0 Replies
 
ebrown p
 
  1  
Reply Tue 29 Apr, 2008 01:03 pm
The two managers didn't subdue the guy with their guns. The guy was still in the parking lot firing his gun.

The two managers subdued him by telling him the police were coming.

If none of these three guys had guns, the two managers could have subdued this guy... and the patrons would not have been in any risk.
0 Replies
 
Setanta
 
  1  
Reply Tue 29 Apr, 2008 01:44 pm
woiyo wrote:
Setanta wrote:
The thread title makes absolutely no sense. Who was the customer protected from a "bad guy" by law-abiding citizens? Why are gun owners always described as "law-abiding citizens?" Do you know for a fact that none of the people involved has ever broken the law? Just what the hell sense is this thread supposed to make?


How about the patrons IN the store? Were they not at risk from the bad guy?

Because they had a license to carry, so in fact, they were obeying ht elaw.

Go back to sleep you old grouch!


Bite me, jackass. Having a concealed carry permit is not evidence that someone has never broken the law. Your thread title specifies "customer," not "the patrons in the store." Quite apart from all of that, this thread makes no sense. There is no reason to assume that anyone was safer in this situation because three clowns in West Palm Beach were packin' iron.

Moron.
0 Replies
 
Bi-Polar Bear
 
  1  
Reply Tue 29 Apr, 2008 01:47 pm
chris rock says just to make bullets cost 5,000.00 apiece. problem solved.
0 Replies
 
woiyo
 
  1  
Reply Wed 30 Apr, 2008 06:00 am
Setanta wrote:
woiyo wrote:
Setanta wrote:
The thread title makes absolutely no sense. Who was the customer protected from a "bad guy" by law-abiding citizens? Why are gun owners always described as "law-abiding citizens?" Do you know for a fact that none of the people involved has ever broken the law? Just what the hell sense is this thread supposed to make?


How about the patrons IN the store? Were they not at risk from the bad guy?

Because they had a license to carry, so in fact, they were obeying ht elaw.

Go back to sleep you old grouch!


Bite me, jackass. Having a concealed carry permit is not evidence that someone has never broken the law. Your thread title specifies "customer," not "the patrons in the store." Quite apart from all of that, this thread makes no sense. There is no reason to assume that anyone was safer in this situation because three clowns in West Palm Beach were packin' iron.

Moron.


Just because you miss the whole point of the does not make me the moron. I can just see a cranky old fart like you owning a business and this bad guy comes in with a gun and you try to chase him with a broom.

Get back to the Dog Track fool!
0 Replies
 
Setanta
 
  1  
Reply Wed 30 Apr, 2008 06:34 am
I can easily see the point you think you can make, but you don't make it. Had none of the three had firearms, no one would have been put at risk. That is a point which you are either unwilling or (more likely) unable to understand.

Great braying jackass.
0 Replies
 
H2O MAN
 
  1  
Reply Wed 30 Apr, 2008 06:37 am
Re: Law Abiding Gun Owners Protect Customer From Bad Guy
woiyo wrote:


The managers, who witnesses said never returned fire, ended up surrounding Grant, who hid behind a vehicle while continuing to fire, according to the police report.
Grant eventually surrendered his weapon to the managers, once they told him police were on their way.


That's the way it's supposed to work. The managers did the right thing.
0 Replies
 
McGentrix
 
  1  
Reply Wed 30 Apr, 2008 06:41 am
Violent people will use violent means. Whether that is with a gun, a knife, a club, a stick of butter.

Outlawing tools will not lower crime as criminals obviously do not care about the law. A knife is just as deadly as a gun and if they take my steak knife away, that's it.
0 Replies
 
maporsche
 
  1  
Reply Wed 30 Apr, 2008 06:41 am
Good for them.

The gun owners were law-abiding in regards to their gun ownership. I don't know if they have unpaid parking tickets or if they are cheating on their taxes, but I do know that in situations like these, the police 100% of the time check out the gun ownership rights of both parties involved (or in this case 3). What matters here is that LEGAL GUN OWNERS protected themselves (and possibly others, but definately themselves) from another gun owner (does anyone know if this shooter had legally purchased guns?). This is why the right to bear arms is REQUIRED, and why the SCOTUS will tear down the unlawful DC gun ban....I hope Chicago's is next to go.

1. People do bad things with guns.
2. There are 300 million of them in the US.
3. Until either #1 or #2 is eliminated good, lawful people (lawful in the gun ownership/use sense) need access to firearms to protect themselves.

If someone has a proposal to eliminate all 300 million guns in the USA and confirm that "bad people" will not be able to get gun from outside the USA then let's hear it.
0 Replies
 
woiyo
 
  1  
Reply Wed 30 Apr, 2008 07:31 am
Setanta wrote:
I can easily see the point you think you can make, but you don't make it. Had none of the three had firearms, no one would have been put at risk. That is a point which you are either unwilling or (more likely) unable to understand.

Great braying jackass.


Really? How do you know that? Maybe the bad guy would have used a club or a knife.

Your colorful metaphors are indicative of your inability to argue a point.
0 Replies
 
Setanta
 
  1  
Reply Wed 30 Apr, 2008 08:07 am
Your extravagant hypotheticals are indicative of your inability to make a point.

Are you suggesting that the two managers could not have disarmed a 73-year-old man carrying a club or a knife? Perhaps you misjudge because you would not be able yourself to handle a man who has already passed his three score and ten.
0 Replies
 
Mame
 
  1  
Reply Wed 30 Apr, 2008 08:28 am
maporsche wrote:
Good for them.

The gun owners were law-abiding in regards to their gun ownership. I don't know if they have unpaid parking tickets or if they are cheating on their taxes, but I do know that in situations like these, the police 100% of the time check out the gun ownership rights of both parties involved (or in this case 3). What matters here is that LEGAL GUN OWNERS protected themselves (and possibly others, but definately themselves) from another gun owner (does anyone know if this shooter had legally purchased guns?). This is why the right to bear arms is REQUIRED, and why the SCOTUS will tear down the unlawful DC gun ban....I hope Chicago's is next to go.

1. People do bad things with guns.
2. There are 300 million of them in the US.
3. Until either #1 or #2 is eliminated good, lawful people (lawful in the gun ownership/use sense) need access to firearms to protect themselves.

If someone has a proposal to eliminate all 300 million guns in the USA and confirm that "bad people" will not be able to get gun from outside the USA then let's hear it.


From what I read, the managers pulled their guns but did not do anything to 'protect' themselves or any patrons of the store... they didn't fire their guns, so, in effect, they did nothing. Later they surrounded him but he was still firing, so as I see it, no protection was carried out.

I think they were stupid to pull their guns. The shooter began shooting after they were pulled and who knows what else the sight of their guns might also have caused?

With nuts like that, you should stay calm, agree to everything, and be quiet. You can't win.
0 Replies
 
woiyo
 
  1  
Reply Wed 30 Apr, 2008 09:07 am
Mame wrote:
maporsche wrote:
Good for them.

The gun owners were law-abiding in regards to their gun ownership. I don't know if they have unpaid parking tickets or if they are cheating on their taxes, but I do know that in situations like these, the police 100% of the time check out the gun ownership rights of both parties involved (or in this case 3). What matters here is that LEGAL GUN OWNERS protected themselves (and possibly others, but definately themselves) from another gun owner (does anyone know if this shooter had legally purchased guns?). This is why the right to bear arms is REQUIRED, and why the SCOTUS will tear down the unlawful DC gun ban....I hope Chicago's is next to go.

1. People do bad things with guns.
2. There are 300 million of them in the US.
3. Until either #1 or #2 is eliminated good, lawful people (lawful in the gun ownership/use sense) need access to firearms to protect themselves.

If someone has a proposal to eliminate all 300 million guns in the USA and confirm that "bad people" will not be able to get gun from outside the USA then let's hear it.


From what I read, the managers pulled their guns but did not do anything to 'protect' themselves or any patrons of the store... they didn't fire their guns, so, in effect, they did nothing. Later they surrounded him but he was still firing, so as I see it, no protection was carried out.

I think they were stupid to pull their guns. The shooter began shooting after they were pulled and who knows what else the sight of their guns might also have caused?

With nuts like that, you should stay calm, agree to everything, and be quiet. You can't win.


That's right, stay calm, do nothing give the bad guy everything. These store owners won.
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

Obama '08? - Discussion by sozobe
Let's get rid of the Electoral College - Discussion by Robert Gentel
McCain's VP: - Discussion by Cycloptichorn
McCain is blowing his election chances. - Discussion by McGentrix
Food Stamp Turkeys - Discussion by H2O MAN
The 2008 Democrat Convention - Discussion by Lash
Snowdon is a dummy - Discussion by cicerone imposter
GAFFNEY: Whose side is Obama on? - Discussion by gungasnake
 
  1. Forums
  2. » Law Abiding Gun Owners Protect Customer From Bad Guy
Copyright © 2019 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.06 seconds on 10/14/2019 at 07:39:20