One killed, two charged with murder in Cobb shootout; police say victim targeted

[oneshooter]

Police have charged two men with murder in connection with a shootout in an east Cobb County neighborhood Thursday night that ended with the death of one of their accomplices.
(snip)

Police say a homeowner living on Glasgow Road was attacked at his home and returned fire at three men, fatally injuring 22-year-old Raymond Reedy Jr.

Investigators were able to link Wayne Spear, 19, to the incident after he showed up Thursday night at Emory University Hospital Midtown, more than 20 miles away in Atlanta to be was treated for a gunshot wound, Cobb County police spokesman Officer Joseph Hernandez said.

A third man, 21-year-old Willie Sinkfield, was said to have been at the scene of the shootout, and both Sinkfield and Spear have been charged with felony murder and aggravated assault, police said.

"Murder doesn't necessarily have to be that you're the shooter," Hernandez said. "A person commits murder when, in commission of a felony, he causes the death of another human being, irrespective of malice."

http://www.ajc.com/news/cobb/one-killed-two-charged-237597.html

3-1 odds, one down one wounded, home owner wounded. Not bad, not bad at all!

Oneshooter
Livin in Texas

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

1. Wait that's impossible, three criminals had the jump on him he couldn't have defended himself.

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

2. Another righteous shoot.

[Hoopla Phil]

3. K and R

[mistertrickster]

4. This guy was tough-as-nails or a maniac, I'm not sure which. Glad he lived and the bad

guys were wasted.

If all three of them had guns, I don't think I would have tried those odds, even if I had a hand grenade.

[one-eyed fat man]

5. Slim and none

I bet he figured his odds as somewhere between slim and none. Had he not resisted, they were going to kill him. If he resisted, they were still going try to kill him. If you figure your going to die anyway, what do you lose by trying to buck the odds?

[Chulanowa]

6. So, just to make sure I got this straight.

This guy defended himself against three guys. Who were shooting at him. With guns.

So I'm puzzled. Ids this a pro- or anti- piece? On both sides, we have proud, noble, red-blooded patriots who love their lead-spitting freedom machines. Is the story about hte side using them for crime, or the guy trying to save his ass from them?

Deep.

[spin]

7. Both pro-gun and anti-gun...

You could argue both sides.

Let me argue the pro-gun side.

Let's assume for a minute that if the gun grabbers who want to ban firearms had been successful and all firearms in this country had been totally eliminated. (Impossible, but make that assumption for the sake of the argument.)

Instead of individuals armed with firearms, the man would have been attacked by three individuals armed with knives, baseball bats or chainsaws. Unless he was an extremely well trained martial artist, he would have suffered serious injury or died. Movies are bullshit. In the movies, the good guy who actually is Superman takes on opponents one at a time and beats them. In real life, you may beat one, but the others are still attacking you at the same time. Chances are you lose big time.

In this story the individual successfully defended himself against three attackers. He was shot but managed to shoot two of the attackers. Quite possibly he was a much better shot than his attackers. Maybe he was just lucky.

Without that firearm he undoubtedly would have lost badly. If he would have been well trained in martial arts, he might have had a chance of survival. How many people are that well trained? Black belts often lose one on one fights with street fighters. Street fighters do not fight fair. A good street fighter only knows a couple of techniques, but he's damn good at them.

Let me use another example of a three on one fight won with a handgun.

Creation of the original anti-ballistic body armor was the result of a pizza delivery that turned into a shootout. In 1969, the night after Apollo 11 took off for the moon, Davis who was a Detroit area pizzeria owner, was concerned because his delivery staff was being robbed. Making a delivery himself in a particularly rough part of town one night, he was held up at gunpoint. To the three robbers surprise, Davis was also armed. In the ensuing shootout, he wounded two of his attackers and was hit twice himself. That incident set in motion the events that would lead to the founding of Second Chance Body Armor Company.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_Chance_Body_Armor_Company

In my opinion, I would prefer to have a "lead-spitting freedom machine" for self defense against a person or persons who were attacking me with the intent of causing severe injury or worse. There is a good possibility that the mere fact that I have a firearm will be enough to defuse such an attack without a shot being fired. I have absolutely no desire to ever injure another individual. Given no other choice, I would shoot to stop the attack.

And yes, I have some training in the martial arts. My training was in Jujutsu which focused primarily on real life self defense including tactics to use against a club, a knife or a gun. I was trained for a nasty form of fighting with no rules. You fight to win and live and you never fight unless necessary. I never was an expert, but the techniques were simple and very effective.

But I value my life and the lives of those I love. I believe that my life and the lives of those I love are worth defending. A firearm is one method of defense, and it may well be one of the best.

But as I said, the story could be used as a base of discussion for both sides of the gun issue.

You seem to believe that civilian ownership of firearms should be banned or severely restricted. let's us assume that this was the law. In this story, how should the victim have defended himself? Or for that matter, should the victim be allowed to defend himself? Do people have the right to hurt other people in legitimate self defense?

[Chulanowa]

8. Start with straw man, end with assumptions

"Let's assume for a moment that gun grabbers who want to ban firearms had been successful..."

Can we also assume that space aliens have landed, and our obsolete spring-mechanism shooters have been replavced with high-efficiency ray guns that use a densely-concentrated beam of light to puncture our foes rather than the grossly inaccurate (by comparison) lead pellets we currently employ? Can we also assume, for a moment, that Rome never fell, and while this confrontation between these four men is going on, the Planet's Emperor is currently at war with these space aliens?

(I have the script, if you want to buy the movie rights!)

Fact is, such mythical "gun-grabbers" have not been successful. Which could arguably be the reason why these three armed men felt perfectly secure in trying to murder the fourth. I understand your point, but the fact remains, your point has no basis in reality. Even within the "reality" you've singlehandedly created, would these three have felt comfortable assaulting a man in his home with baseball bats? Having a gun in your hands is pretty empowering compared to a big stick, after all. And the fact that it's hard to fend off someone in a melee combat is true for both sides. I'd hate to be the first guy breaking into the house of a guy armed with a garden rake, wouldn't you? or a bar of soap in a sock. it could be very possible that this guy also had an illegal gun in this reality.

Next, your assumption that I am one of said "gun grabbing" creatures. This is pretty regular here on the Guns forum, where the prevailing thought is that bad people need to die, good people need to kill them, and that either yer fer me or agin me. Since I don't agree with all your canned talking points, then I MUST be on a crusade to snatch all your guns. Far from it. I just happen to think people who yank off about guns are fucking ludicrous. The "gun culture" is one of the most idiotic things to soil the collective underwear of America, and I would happily see each and every one of its proponents have a "I was cleaning it and then..." moment, just so I don't have to hear their bullshit straw men, false dichotomies, imaginary realities, and pseudohistory anymore.

As for whether people have the right to hurt others in self defense. I have Sitting Bull in my avatar. What do you think?

[eqfan592]

9. I don't think you know what a "strawman" argument is.

The idea of a "strawman" argument involves a person applying a certain argument to someone else by taking the counter position to that argument and claiming shock that the other person doesn't agree with you (the second part isn't always necessary, but tends to go along with it).

For instance, one my cousin used recently was "How about we just abolish the entire military, and when mexico kicks our asses, we can thank our liberal leaders!" Of course, this implies that there are actually liberals in power at this point in time, in some significant quantity, that wish to disband our entire military. This is obviously not true, and thus setting it up as being true is a "strawman".

What the previous poster set up would not qualify as such. There are, in fact, posters on this forum that regularly espouse total firearm ownership bans. But really, that's not even important to the point. The point was that he was making is that these criminals could have easily attempted to commit the crime with or without guns, and the fact that the victim was also armed with a gun was a major equalizer. The main idea was that, all things being equal, but without firearms, that this victim would likely have been SOL. This is a perfectly valid point to make under the circumstances. Such "what-if" scenarios are key when discussing policy (at least among the rational thinkers of the world).

I also find it funny that you claim to not be any sort of "gun grabber" then go off on a broad-brushed rant about gun owners, and make a few very disgusting commentaries while doing so. It's like saying "I'm not an irrational ass hole, I just act and sound like one." With people like you saying the sorts of things you do, do you really have to wonder why somebody may hold you in such low regard?


EDIT: You also don't seem to understand what the word "assumption" means, either, based on your usage. But we won't get into that much more deeply than that.

[divideandconquer]

10. Another bloody victory dance for the gun huggers

Maybe y'all can mount the bad guys head on the wall like a dead deer.

[east texas lib]

11. How did you know?

I also have one on the hood of my pickup truck! The birds love it too! ;-)

[Hoopla Phil]

12. Yeah, but the rats always get the eyes so fast. . .

[PavePusher]

14. You're right.

The intended victim should have just let himself be killed, without causing a fuss for the criminals. And we should never celebrate the fact that a person has successfully defended themself from such a fate.


I offer you an invitation to the world.

[rd_kent]

15. Yeah, your right. Im dancing right now....

Your ass-hattery knows no limits.

[spin]

13. In your reply, you say...

"Even within the "reality" you've singlehandedly created, would these three have felt comfortable assaulting a man in his home with baseball bats? Having a gun in your hands is pretty empowering compared to a big stick, after all. And the fact that it's hard to fend off someone in a melee combat is true for both sides. I'd hate to be the first guy breaking into the house of a guy armed with a garden rake, wouldn't you? or a bar of soap in a sock."

The incident didn't involve a home break in.

As the homeowner and his wife got out of their car, they were approached by three men with guns, Hernandez said.

In in my scenario (a world without guns) you have a man and his wife, outside of their house being approached by three aggressive men armed not with firearms, but instead knives, baseball bats or chainsaws. How does he survive and protect his wife?

I can formulate a reply. Still, the availability and access to a firearm proved very effective for the man in the real life situation. There may be something to that old adage, "God made man, but Sam Colt made all men equal."

As to your comment:

"Next, your assumption that I am one of said "gun grabbing" creatures. This is pretty regular here on the Guns forum, where the prevailing thought is that bad people need to die, good people need to kill them, and that either yer fer me or agin me. Since I don't agree with all your canned talking points, then I MUST be on a crusade to snatch all your guns."

Most of the gun owners and advocates for concealed or open carry on this forum do not hold that "bad people need to die, good people need to kill them".

We would prefer to never have an encounter where we had to use a firearm. We tend to avoid problems. It's called situational awareness.

But if we are attacked, we prefer to have the ability to defend ourselves or others. Hopefully, no shots will have to be fired and no one will be injured. If we have to shoot, we shoot to stop not to kill. I personally have no desire to play judge, jury and executioner.

You insults are at least a step above the normal ones we get from ant-gun posters. I like originality.

Your comment:

"The "gun culture" is one of the most idiotic things to soil the collective underwear of America, and I would happily see each and every one of its proponents have a "I was cleaning it and then..." moment,"

was fresh and creative.

By the way I do like the Sitting Bull avatar.