Defensive Carry banner

1 - 20 of 26 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
932 Posts
Discussion Starter #1
I saw this in the news today. This is what gives gun owners a bad name and anti-gun politicians the excuse they need to pass even more gun control laws. When we own and carry a gun, we not only incur the responsibility to know how to properly and safely use a gun, we also have the responsibility of knowing when we are not fit to use it.

There are current threads here discussing why many people who can carry don't. While there are numerous reasons given for why we should carry a gun, we seldom - if ever - talk about when we SHOULDN'T. Maybe it's time we started!

***********************************

"A man lifting his infant daughter out of his car was killed in an apparent case of road rage by a motorist "who obviously exploded" and shot him four times at close range in front of dozens of witnesses, authorities said.

The victim's 10-month-old girl was covered with blood but uninjured when police found her in a car seat on the floor of the vehicle.

Walter R. Bishop, 60, who was taking medication for depression, was arrested Tuesday and charged with first-degree murder in the death of 27-year-old Sandro Andrade. He pleaded innocent and was ordered held without bail; a hearing was scheduled for Aug. 26.

Plymouth District Attorney Timothy J. Cruz said Bishop had made a calculated decision to "shoot a man in cold blood in broad daylight on the streets of Brockton."

Police Chief Paul Studenski described it as a case of road rage.

Bishop's attorney, Kevin Reddington, said Andrade had provoked his client during a traffic altercation.

"We have a homicide that resulted from a circumstance where somebody picked a fight with an individual who obviously exploded," Reddington said. Bishop, a former soldier and security guard, had recently begun taking two medications for depression, he said.

Bishop told investigators he was driving his wife to the train station when Andrade's vehicle backed toward him on Main Street, Cruz said. The two exchanged heated words.

"He said his wife was scared, and he said he was angry at that encounter," Cruz said of Bishop. "He said he made up his mind right there that he had to do something."

After dropping his wife off, he allegedly returned to the scene of the confrontation, pointed a handgun through an open window and fired, police said.

"Pop! Pop! Pop! Pop! Four shots. It sounded like a cap gun," Louis McPhee, the manager of a car wash across the street, told The Boston Globe. "The guy was lying there in his own blood with a hole in his head and his arm still on the baby."

Bishop left before police arrived, but witnesses gave investigators his license plate number and police found him at his home.

Police said Bishop has a valid handgun license."
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
932 Posts
Discussion Starter #3 (Edited)
"We have a homicide that resulted from a circumstance where somebody picked a fight with an individual who obviously exploded," Reddington said. Bishop, a former soldier and security guard, had recently begun taking two medications for depression, he said.

Bishop told investigators he was driving his wife to the train station when Andrade's vehicle backed toward him on Main Street, Cruz said. The two exchanged heated words.

"He said his wife was scared, and he said he was angry at that encounter," Cruz said of Bishop. "He said he made up his mind right there that he had to do something."

After dropping his wife off, he allegedly returned to the scene of the confrontation, pointed a handgun through an open window and fired, police said."


That pretty much says it all. There are numerous discussions going on in this forum right now over when and where we should use our weapons. While the situations and responses vary, the bottom line for all of them is a gun should only be used in self defense and as a last resort when our lives - or someone elses - are threatened with extreme and immediate harm or death.

By his own admisssion, the shooter left the scene of the original incident, then returned after he'd had time to think about what happened and shot the other driver as his back was turned and he was in his car. I think this will be hard to justify as a "good" shooting. This all goes back to a comment in another thread about using our heads and not our emotions, especially when a gun is involved. When you hold a gun, you're holding the power of life and death. If it isn't used wisely, this is the result.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
25,483 Posts
ra - on the evidence as provided right now this appears to be nothing less than execution - cold blooded murder in the first degree. If there is more info forthcoming then of course that would be useful but so far - it would seem more than difficult find any mitigating factors at all. I would certainly welcome more info so as to able to reconsider, if in fact some details have thus far been omitted.

It is certainly about the worst press we as responsible CCW's could imagine - a true nightmare scenario.

You are 100% correct in that our carrying of a firearm is only and ONLY for last ditch protection - no more than that. I agree too that whilst I ran the thread about all those shooters who do not (or wish not to) carry - there is this opposite of seeing some who should NOT carry at all. Whether by virtue of mental instability, medications, whatever.

True enough - I should never want to express my ''carry why don't you'' at all costs - and this suitably demonstrates the other side of the coin - something I admit I should have been wise to include in my original post material on that other thread.

Guess that comes from making a false assumption that all folks who might carry are like us and responsible stable people.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
932 Posts
Discussion Starter #5
P95Carry said:
...
Guess that comes from making a false assumption that all folks who might carry are like us and responsible stable people.
I'd dare say that the people who frequent this forum are "above average" when it comes to ability and knowledge about carrying a handgun. Just the fact they are engaged in discussions here shows they have an interest in improving and expanding their knowledge of the use of guns in self defense beyond that of the average person. If any good can come from a tragedy like the one that just happened, one thing may be that we, as gun owners and users, will use it to examine our reasons for carrying a weapon. Hopefully it will go beyond the "because I can" for many of us and make us consider instead the true reasons behind our individual need to carry a weapon. Is it a real necessity, simply our ego or an unfounded paranoia.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,206 Posts
What is a "valid handgun license" in Massachusetts? I don't think that is the same as a CCW that the rest of us would have. I think it may be just a permit to own a gun which the PRM requires. Most states require you to turn in your CCW, or it becomes invalid if you start taking any mood altering drugs anyway. This guy was a law breaker and having a permit had nothing to do with it. He could have just as easily gone back and beaten the victim to death with a tire iron.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
17,352 Posts
As post above says just cause he had a Handgun permit doesnt mean it was a CCW permit ... I have quite a few handgun permits here all they are is a green card that says i own the gun ..



Also Here in Michigan Takeing Drugs for depression will disquailfy you from a CCW im sure taking them and having a CCW will end you up in jail if you shoot someone
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
932 Posts
Discussion Starter #9 (Edited)
It looks as if most replies here are drifting from the intent of my post. The original question was should we carry a gun just because we can and are there times when, for our own welfare and the welfare of others, we shouldn't carry a weapon. With the exception of P95, the replies have instead shifted to accusing the press of anti-gun bias (I actually thought the story was pretty neutral for once except for the comment by the DA) or are shifting to unrelated points. Several replies have talked about whether the permit the shooter had was a CC permit, gun owners permit or something else. The news article stated he had a valid handgun license, period. He wasn't a criminal or carried an illegal or banned weapon, but he had a valid license. In fact, unlike the usual writeup you see in the press, the article never mentioned the type of gun (other than being a handgun) or caliber. Besides, it doesn't matter. The man owned a gun, legally or not, and used it to shoot someone else for no other apparent reason other than he was mad at him.

Let's quit trying to blow smoke here people. If I want a shell game of hide the facts and lets confuse the issue with a lot of biased, misdirected questions within questions, I'll go over to the gun control forums. We, of all people, should concern ourselves with dealing with the facts, whether we agree with them or not. While we'd all like to think that gun owners are responsible, level headed people who accept the responsibility of owning a firearm seriously, it's simply not always that way. There are people who should never be let near a gun, much less own one. Also, even level headed, responsible people can change for reasons beyond their control. Let's not make excuses for them just because it fits into our agenda.

In this case, there seems to be blame for everyone to share. I can see where there were at least a half dozen places where this whole tragedy could have been avoided. Was there a real need for the confrontation to begin with? What ever happened to common courtesy. If someone cuts me off on the interstate or makes a crude remark, is there a law that says I have to respond in kind? Either driver could have simply walked away at the beginning. If the shooter was on medication, he must have known there was a problem already. Knowing his judgment was impaired by the medication and he was suffering from an emotional disorder, he should have opted to not carry, for his safety and the safety of others. Did he have friends or family who knew he owned a gun and that he wasn't "quite right"? Why did he have to go back after the first confrontation and kill the other man? Couldn't he have written it off as an annoying, but harmless experience and let it go at that?

As I originally asked, isn't this the exact reason the anti-gun lobby gives for wanting to take away our right to keep and carry our weapons? Maybe we should view this as a wake up call and begin looking out for others as well as ourselves. If we know of a gun owner who's under medication or suffering from emotional stress and his judgment is impaired, maybe we should step in and point out to them that they may be a danger to themselves and others. I would hope and pray that if I weren't capable of making that judgment call for myself, someone else would.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,780 Posts
MA requires a permit to own/possess/buy/carry/think about guns, mags, ammo or components (even spent .22LR cases)! The class of permit defines whether a person can carry it or not. LTC-A is required to carry (but it can be issued restricted, with whatever restrictions the local chief wants to impose), where an LTC-B allows possession of low-cap handguns (only), any legal rifle/shotgun but no carry.

I don't recall where the perp lived (that's where the permits must be issued from), but I expect massive fall-out on law abiding citizens of Brockton.

Brockton rarely issues LTC-A. Almost all LTCs are LTC-B there as they have an anti-gun attitude (only criminals should have guns in Brockton). One of their Police Commissioners is a long time associate of mine and I've never been able to "reach him". Of course he CCWs everywhere and has for as long as I've known him (>25 years). . . even when he ran a private narcotics testing lab professionally for a lot of years (he's retired from that job).

I expect that the fallout of this will be that many LTCs will be denied, as a knee-jerk reaction. BTW, Brockton is one place that I'd only feel comfortable carrying an AR-15 and wearing a vest! A handgun is NOT ENOUGH gun to go into that war-zone!

The perp was ex-military, ex-security, so he probably had a LTC-A, making him legal to carry.

MA does NOT require you to notify or turn in your permit if you take any prescribed drugs. The local chief can ask whatever he wants when you go to apply/renew and he can deny for any reason he likes (it's 100% discretionary to issue and he can use the excuse "not suitable person" to deny because of hair color if he wants to and it's perfectly legal).

No doubt that the perp was unstable and thus shouldn't have even been on the streets, but Brockton in particular is full of folks like that and I'd bet that most are illegally carrying some weapon (plus drugs).

I agree that what he did was an execution, plain and simple. And no mitigating circumstances should minimize the crime (or the sentence).
 

·
Administrator
Joined
·
143,819 Posts
A Person Is In Pretty Bad Mental Condition

When that person goes BACK to a location to complete a Road Rage Murder & put himself Guaranteed on Death Row. He should have simply called the Police.
You know...write down the tag number and call the Police :confused: ???
That is a pretty "out of control" unstable person.
Him & his wife were already away from the scene & SAFE & he Went Back to play Judge, Jury, & Executioner.
He would have used an AX or a machete, baseball bat, or whatever was available if he had no gun. His intention was to murder somebody because he was POed.
He is just crazy. You would need to be TOTALLY bonkers to even consider shooting somebody that was holding an infant. Meanwhile that little baby is probably going to have permanent hearing damage even though the innocent baby did not catch a bullet.

SORRY! But, There Cannot be another rational side to any story where somebody shoots 4 times into a car at anybody that is holding a tiny 10 month old baby. :mad: Just my humble opinion.
Oh...but, he'll be able to tell his side of the story sometime before he gets his lethal injection. :dead:
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,780 Posts
Sorry no death row or lethal injection here (except from Bubba with AIDS)! We have no death penalty and even if we did, no governor would have the balls to follow thru on it (and that includes our aspiring RINO Gov. Romney who will be running for President in a few years). The bleating liberal sheep here would castigate any governor who actually tried to push the death penalty.

You forget we're in the land of OZ (Kerry/Kennedy), it's not the perp's fault . . . the drugs made him do it, or the victim made him do it, or society made him do it . . .

He'll probably plead down to manslaughter and serve no more than 8-10 years. That's the way our "CRIMINAL" justice system works here. And Kevin Reddington (his atty) is well known (well connected) and a damn good atty, so he'll work out some sort of deal for his client.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
932 Posts
Discussion Starter #13 (Edited)
I'd hate to think that someone can put four bullets into someone else on a public street in an urban area of the US, in broad daylight, in front of numerous witnesses, admits to doing it and even admits to doing it only because he was pissed off because of a traffic confrontation would be able to get off easy. Still, by using "I was taking medication" as an excuse and with our fine legal system (the best money can buy), I can see it happening.
:mad:
 

·
Administrator
Joined
·
143,819 Posts
rachilders - You Missed One - ADD

"I'd hate to think that someone can put four bullets into someone else HOLDING A LITTLE BABY on a public street in an urban area of the US, in broad daylight, in front of numerous witnesses, admits to doing it and even admits to doing it only because he was pissed off because of a traffic confrontation would be able to get off easy." :mad:

DITTO: :mad:
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
932 Posts
Discussion Starter #15
QKShooter said:
"I'd hate to think that someone can put four bullets into someone else HOLDING A LITTLE BABY on a public street in an urban area of the US, in broad daylight, in front of numerous witnesses, admits to doing it and even admits to doing it only because he was pissed off because of a traffic confrontation would be able to get off easy." :mad:

DITTO: :mad:
Actually, I think the baby was still in it's car seat, but even if the victim had been hold the baby, I don't think it would have made a difference to the shooter. Come to think of it, if the father HAD been holding the baby, it would have probably been shot as well.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
21 Posts
Given what has been alleged, the guy should be hanged. As for looking amongst ourselves; I am not going to do it. I am not going to question others' decisions whether to own or not and whether to carry or not. If they decide to use a gun as a tool for their malevolence, then they should be held accountable for their actions, not the implement they used to carry them out.

...I also am unafraid to be held by these same standards.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
932 Posts
Discussion Starter #17
We all ultimately must decide our own best course of action for whatever we do. In this case, the shooting of one driver by another in an apparent case of road rage taken to the extreme reminds me that we gun owners spend a lot of time talking about what we carry, when we carry, where we carry, how we carry and why we carry. We seldom, if ever, discuss the possibility of there being times or circumstances when we need to ask ourselves IF we should carry. Maybe this will wake up all of us to the possibility that just because we can own or carry a gun doesn't always mean we should.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
6,260 Posts
IMHO, we are confusing ourselves by the question. It should be TWO questions that encompass all the answers above. When whe shouldn't carry and when we shouldn't draw.

When we shouldn't carry? When it is against the law is one. Depending on your state there are places you cannot carry and we are all law abiding citizens here. If we disagree on what's on the legislation, we should push for change.

The other time when we shouldn't carry is whenever we are in condition of Diminished Capacity. Are we on a medication that will alter our perceptions? Did we go too happy at Happy Hour or at the Family Reunion? Then the gun must go secured until your mind is normal. No Ifs, no Buts no Excuses. Even the most righteous shooting will go down the drain if an eager D.A. with a political leaning against guns finds out you are off kilter because of something you ingested.
Then again you could choose NOT to ingest alcohol while you are carrying even if it is a hot day and your throat is aching for that cold cold beer. Think not only about the legal point but what if you are faced with a situation when you do need to use the gun and your response time and your abilities as shooter are reduced because you went and had a couple of six packs? You lose and maybe somebody you love will get hurt because you were impaired.
With your gun comes responsability and you should be willing to make that kind of sacrifice.

When we shouldn't draw? When your ego is affected and involved. That sumbiotch in the japanese compact, rap at full blasts cuts you off and gives you the finger? Blow them a kiss and let them be. The guy at the grocery stores will not accept your excuse when you bumped into him and is cussing you up and down? Withdraw, go away, call the manager if the guy persists. A bruised ego does not constitute "an inminent fear of death or grave bodily harm." And that is the parameter we all must use before doing something that might allter the rest of our lives.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
25,483 Posts
A worthwhile distinction Miggy - well presented.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
357 Posts
If you choose to carry, it is incumbent upon you to hold yourself to a higher standard of behavior. If you should need to use your weapon for self defense, you will be held to a higher standard by our legal system.

To respond to the original question, I don't think one should carry if using any "mood-altering" substance, unless evaluated while using same and been found "stable" (for lack of a better term) by a medical professional. Conversely, one who is on a regimen and subsequently discontinues use or his/her prescription should again cease to carry until stability is demonstrated.

I don't carry when:
- illegal (obviously)
- drinking (so I don't drink much)
- taking prescription medicine that has any cautions about drowsiness, operating vehicles/equipment, etc.

I think all of the above would fall under the umbrella of common sense.

SSKC
 
1 - 20 of 26 Posts
Top