Thugs...and What To Do With 'Em

[PoliticalChic]

1. A petite young Bronx woman was pummeled into a coma by a thug who was furious that she was holding a parking space in the East Village, The Post has learned.

2. [Oscar] Fuller -- whose prior busts include weapons possession and felony assault -- jumped out and started screaming at Rosas when she claimed she was holding the space, police sources said.

3. Fuller then "punched [her] in the face with so much force that the woman flew off her feet," according to court papers.

4. A police source added, "The victim suffered permanent brain damage. It's uncertain whether or not she will survive her injuries."
"Parking rage" thug Oscar Fuller puts Bronx woman, Lana Rosas in a coma - NYPOST.com

5. It was the hardest, fastest punch I've ever seen, Katherine Reilly told the Manhattan jury as she described Fuller’s strike against the 4-foot-11 Rosas, who was knocked into a coma. It sounded to me like a watermelon splitting open, the 27-year-old teacher said of the impact of Rosas head crashing against the pavement.
Woman punched in East Village parking dispute*doesn


And, in a related story...

6. (Reuters) - A South Carolina sheriff who called for women to carry guns to defend themselves against assaults said on Tuesday he has received a positive response to his advice.
"I don't want you to go for the Mace. I want you to go for the concealed weapons permit," the sheriff said, according to a video of his remarks.

"They got one called 'The Judge' that shoots a .45 or a .410 shell," he said. "You ain't gotta be accurate. You just gotta get close."
Sheriff tells women to get guns to ward off attacks | Reuters

 

[Douger]

Do what Fidel would do.Straight to the morgue.

 

[whitehall]

Why do you need to ask? Is there some indication that the Bronx D.A. is not going to prosecute? We need to do what we always do in a Constitutional government.

 

[High_Gravity]

Prosecute them to the fullest extent of the law, what else can we do?

 

[OldUSAFSniper]

And the question in Oklahoma would be: If the maggott hit the woman that hard and knocked her off her feet, would it be a righteous shoot when a bystander who was carrying blew this little maggots head all over the wall?

If I was part of the jury, I would say that it was totally righteous.

Or perhaps there is a bleeding heart leftie our there that would like us to see if this pencil headed little prick was abused as a child?

 

[Wry Catcher]

Early intervention. The genesis of this story began years before and the solution is not vigilante justice. An untrained or scared person discharging a firearm in the direction of a threat on a city street isn't a solution, it's a problem. The Sheriff is a fool.

 

[PoliticalChic]

Prosecute them to the fullest extent of the law, what else can we do?

"Human beings only have two ways to deal with one another: reason and force. If you want me to do something for you, you have a choice of either convincing me via argument, or force me to do your bidding under threat of force. Every human interaction falls into one of those two categories, without exception. Reason or force, that's it.

In a truly moral and civilized society, people exclusively interact through persuasion. Force has no place as a valid method of social interaction, and the only thing that removes force from the menu is the personal firearm, as paradoxical as it may sound to some.

When I carry a gun, you cannot deal with me by force. You have to use reason and try to persuade me, because I have a way to negate your threat or employment of force. The gun is the only personal weapon that puts a 100-pound woman on equal footing with a 220-pound mugger, a 75-year old retiree on equal footing with a 19-year old gangbanger, and a single gay guy on equal footing with a carload of drunk guys with baseball bats. The gun removes the disparity in physical strength, size, or numbers between a potential attacker and a defender.

...A mugger, even an armed one, can only make a successful living in a society where the state has granted him a force monopoly.

Then there's the argument that the gun makes confrontations lethal that otherwise would only result in injury. This argument is fallacious in several ways. Without guns involved, confrontations are won by the physically superior party inflicting overwhelming injury on the loser. People who think that fists, bats, sticks, or stones don't constitute lethal force watch too much TV,...

When I carry a gun, I don't do so because I am looking for a fight, but because I'm looking to be left alone. The gun at my side means that I cannot be forced, only persuaded. I don't carry it because I'm afraid, but because it enables me to be unafraid. It doesn't limit the actions of those who would interact with me through reason, only the actions of those who would do so by force. It removes force from the equation...and that's why carrying a gun is a civilized act."
why the gun is civilization. | the munchkin wrangler.

 

[PoliticalChic]

Why do you need to ask? Is there some indication that the Bronx D.A. is not going to prosecute? We need to do what we always do in a Constitutional government.

Why do you belive that the only remediation is to wait until the act...such as the one which I believed I had sufficiently outlined in the OP...took place?

I don't want this thug convicted and imprisoned after he imprisoned his victim for life! Which on will get out of their prison sooner?

 

[Mad Scientist]

 

[Wry Catcher]

"Human beings only have two ways to deal with one another: reason and force."

That is one of the dumbest remarks I've read (it may even top some of those by CrusaderFrank and Willow Tree).

We have laws and when reason doesn't work incarceration is the answer. One might argue locking someone up is a form of force, but I suspect in this context PC was not thinking of prison when she posits force.

Force used without due diligence is never right under vigilantism. Recall Meursault's fate in The Stranger; use of force maybe justified in exigent circumstances, but some who wish for open carry laws may have a desire to use deadly force. And, of course one must consider the perp who so maliciously attacked this women would also be able to carry a firearm, if the gun nuts have their way.

 

[mskafka]

It feels as if I've stepped into an alternate universe. When did America regress back to the time of Bonanza? Watch out, folks. Jesse James is coming to rob your subways.

 

[PoliticalChic]

"Human beings only have two ways to deal with one another: reason and force."

That is one of the dumbest remarks I've read (it may even top some of those by CrusaderFrank and Willow Tree).

We have laws and when reason doesn't work incarceration is the answer. One might argue locking someone up is a form of force, but I suspect in this context PC was not thinking of prison when she posits force.

Force used without due diligence is never right under vigilantism. Recall Meursault's fate in The Stranger; use of force maybe justified in exigent circumstances, but some who wish for open carry laws may have a desire to use deadly force. And, of course one must consider the perp who so maliciously attacked this women would also be able to carry a firearm, if the gun nuts have their way.

1. "That is one of the dumbest remarks I've read..."
In the area of dumb remarks, I must bow to your experience...

2. "Criminal attacks stopped by guns this year: 4,462,213 "
The World Wide Web Gun Defense Clock


3. "if the gun nuts have their way..."
(See what I mean about your experience in making dumb remarks?)

"Washington DC's low murder rate of 80.6 per 100,000 is due to strict gun control, and Arlington, VA's high murder rate of 1.6 per 100,000 is due to the lack of gun control. "
http://attrition.org/technical/firearms/40_gun_control.html

 

[George Costanza]

Why do you need to ask? Is there some indication that the Bronx D.A. is not going to prosecute? We need to do what we always do in a Constitutional government.

Why do you belive that the only remediation is to wait until the act...such as the one which I believed I had sufficiently outlined in the OP...took place?

Surely, you aren't proposing that women should walk around with guns at the ready and shoot any larger male who even looks as though he might be a threat?

And, yes, I am calling you Surely . . . .

 

[mskafka]

4,462,213. Good gawd! The first thing that I want to know is where these individuals got this data, and second-where the hell did they find the time to gather the data? That's a lot of people, and a lot of cases to sift through to make certain that it was indeed a crime stopped by a gun?

Owning a gun is not a bad thing. I own one myself. Obsession with them, by some, amazes me.

Seriously....how was this data collected, Chic?

 

[PoliticalChic]

It feels as if I've stepped into an alternate universe. When did America regress back to the time of Bonanza? Watch out, folks. Jesse James is coming to rob your subways.

'Twelve years of additional experience and mountains of data confirm the empirical truth – more guns in the hands of law-abiding citizens mean less crime.

“I would ask gun control advocates one question: name a single place in the entire world where murder rates fell after gun control laws were passed.”

That is the powerful challenge from economist Dr. John Lott, Jr., who was kind enough to discuss with CFIF the third edition release of his tectonic book More Guns, Less Crime.'
John Lott: More Guns, Still Less Crime


Why is it that data and experience never seem to be the tools implemented when a Liberal attempts to draw a conclusion?

Based on this preferred methodology, it seems de regueur to treat the pronouncements of said Liberals the same as one would treat those of a five year old, or a pet parrot.

 

[Wry Catcher]

"Human beings only have two ways to deal with one another: reason and force."

That is one of the dumbest remarks I've read (it may even top some of those by CrusaderFrank and Willow Tree).

We have laws and when reason doesn't work incarceration is the answer. One might argue locking someone up is a form of force, but I suspect in this context PC was not thinking of prison when she posits force.

Force used without due diligence is never right under vigilantism. Recall Meursault's fate in The Stranger; use of force maybe justified in exigent circumstances, but some who wish for open carry laws may have a desire to use deadly force. And, of course one must consider the perp who so maliciously attacked this women would also be able to carry a firearm, if the gun nuts have their way.

1. "That is one of the dumbest remarks I've read..."
In the area of dumb remarks, I must bow to your experience...

2. "Criminal attacks stopped by guns this year: 4,462,213 "
The World Wide Web Gun Defense Clock


3. "if the gun nuts have their way..."
(See what I mean about your experience in making dumb remarks?)

"Washington DC's low murder rate of 80.6 per 100,000 is due to strict gun control, and Arlington, VA's high murder rate of 1.6 per 100,000 is due to the lack of gun control. "
http://attrition.org/technical/firearms/40_gun_control.html

My experience is based on 32 years of law enforcement. You seem to be a dilettante in terms of life experience. Gun nuts is an accurate description of the subset of gun owners. Most everyone I know owns firearms, none of them parade around with an unloaded & openly carried weapon. A very, very stupid activity.

There are likely more causes than one for the murder rate in The District; offering only one is a sign of a partisan hack.

 

[PoliticalChic]

4,462,213. Good gawd! The first thing that I want to know is where these individuals got this data, and second-where the hell did they find the time to gather the data? That's a lot of people, and a lot of cases to sift through to make certain that it was indeed a crime stopped by a gun?

Owning a gun is not a bad thing. I own one myself. Obsession with them, by some, amazes me.

Seriously....how was this data collected, Chic?

Seriously, ...if you believe that a law abiding citizen with a gun is a danger rather than an asset to society, I wonder if have done any research into the matter?

The 'Bonanza' line is telling. And totally fallacious. Why do you believe others are less able than you are?
(Liberals generally have that view of their fellow citizens....that they require the guidance of the elites...)

A relatively short book, well documented, and available in your local library is the one referenced above, John Lott, Jr.'s "More Guns, Less Crime."

Would you have any interest in perusing same, to verify your viewpoint?

 

[Wry Catcher]

4,462,213. Good gawd! The first thing that I want to know is where these individuals got this data, and second-where the hell did they find the time to gather the data? That's a lot of people, and a lot of cases to sift through to make certain that it was indeed a crime stopped by a gun?

Owning a gun is not a bad thing. I own one myself. Obsession with them, by some, amazes me.

Seriously....how was this data collected, Chic?

Seriously, ...if you believe that a law abiding citizen with a gun is a danger rather than an asset to society, I wonder if have done any research into the matter?

The 'Bonanza' line is telling. And totally fallacious. Why do you believe others are less able than you are?
(Liberals generally have that view of their fellow citizens....that they require the guidance of the elites...)

A relatively short book, well documented, and available in your local library is the one referenced above, John Lott, Jr.'s "More Guns, Less Crime."

Would you have any interest in perusing same, to verify your viewpoint?

See my post above, and, put down the book and experience real life. You really come across as a naive and spoiled brat, IMHO.

 

[mskafka]

Gun control? Don't be ridiculous. Since I've been 22 years old, I haven't NOT owned a gun. When I was married, we had a small arsenal in the house.

If someone is interested in guns, gun history, and likes to collect them for their value, fine. I don't agree with what I perceive to be fear-mongering. People with an irrational fear government officials are going to go knocking on the doors of over 300 million people and tell them to hand them over.

Protecting yourself is fine. I've treated many gunshot wounds in the last 16 years. Everything from a .22, to shotgun blasts, to .30-06. If you've never seen one, you would be absolutely shocked at what a firearm can do to someone, when it lands in the wrong hands.

 

[PoliticalChic]

"Human beings only have two ways to deal with one another: reason and force."

That is one of the dumbest remarks I've read (it may even top some of those by CrusaderFrank and Willow Tree).

We have laws and when reason doesn't work incarceration is the answer. One might argue locking someone up is a form of force, but I suspect in this context PC was not thinking of prison when she posits force.

Force used without due diligence is never right under vigilantism. Recall Meursault's fate in The Stranger; use of force maybe justified in exigent circumstances, but some who wish for open carry laws may have a desire to use deadly force. And, of course one must consider the perp who so maliciously attacked this women would also be able to carry a firearm, if the gun nuts have their way.

1. "That is one of the dumbest remarks I've read..."
In the area of dumb remarks, I must bow to your experience...

2. "Criminal attacks stopped by guns this year: 4,462,213 "
The World Wide Web Gun Defense Clock


3. "if the gun nuts have their way..."
(See what I mean about your experience in making dumb remarks?)

"Washington DC's low murder rate of 80.6 per 100,000 is due to strict gun control, and Arlington, VA's high murder rate of 1.6 per 100,000 is due to the lack of gun control. "
http://attrition.org/technical/firearms/40_gun_control.html

My experience is based on 32 years of law enforcement. You seem to be a dilettante in terms of life experience. Gun nuts is an accurate description of the subset of gun owners. Most everyone I know owns firearms, none of them parade around with an unloaded & openly carried weapon. A very, very stupid activity.

There are likely more causes than one for the murder rate in The District; offering only one is a sign of a partisan hack.

1. Sorry, Wry....but I've read your posts, and based on same "My experience is based on 32 years of law enforcement" is hardly convincing of anything.

Statistics, to which I give more weight than your self aggrandizing back-patting, prove you woefully wrong.


2. "You seem to be a dilettante in terms of life experience..."
I may not have accumulated your years...wasn't your high school field trip the Gold Rush?...but I bow to none in ability to analyze data.

3. [Lott] asked: “Does allowing people to own or carry guns deter violent crime, or does it simply cause more citizens to harm each other?”

Lott’s objective conclusion was controversial in 1998, less so today.

Based upon broad data sources and examination of FBI annual crime figures for all 3,054 American counties spanning sixteen years, he found that waiting periods, gun buybacks and background checks “yield virtually no benefits in crime reduction.” In contrast, Lott observed that “of all the methods studied so far by economists, the carrying of concealed handguns appears to be the most cost-effective method for reducing crime.”

4. Sadly, you force me to show how little you have actually learned in a lifetime...
...the CDC actually studied all of the various laws and programs in the nation designed by well meaning folks (guess which was probably their political persuasion?) and found none to be effective...

Here:
"Evidence was insufficient to determine the effectiveness of any of these laws for the following reasons.
In summary, the Task Force found insufficient evidence to determine the effectiveness of any of the firearms laws reviewed for preventing violence."

http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/pdf/rr/rr5214.pdf


5. Now, Wry, you have evinced an inability to reflect on new data an to adapt to new viewpoints...which explains why your "32 years of law enforcement" has been less than educational...so I hardly expect any change in you based on this post.

It is time, I believe, for you to don those horrid white orthopedic walking shoes, and matching belt, and waddle off, ‘else you may miss the ‘Early Bird Special’!