Follow up on the Temple student shoot-out.

[GreenStormCloud]

http://blogs.phillymag.com/the_philly_post/2011/09/16/temple-university-guns-town/

On September 5th, at 1:45 in the morning, 21-year-old Temple student Robert Eells and his roommate were having a cigarette on the porch of their North Philadelphia home. The block was pretty quiet. Three teens approached the porch and demanded money. One had a gun. Eells didn’t comply with their request, and the boy shot him in the stomach. Eells, who had a firearm in his sweatshirt pocket, shot back.

That makes it clear that the thug shot first, Eells returned fire.

Another issue: To protect yourself walking home after class, you’d actually need to bring the gun to class. Temple has a strict no-weapons policy for all campus areas, and Eells confirms that having a license to carry is no exception. But if students are genuinely afraid to travel to and from Temple without protection, they might consider carrying anyway if they don’t think they’ll get caught.

Eells says, “That’s one of the old clichés you hear a lot: concealed means concealed.” I thought about that for a second and then asked, “So people could have them, and we wouldn’t know?” Eells’s response? “People DO have them, and you don’t know.”

More at link

[ileus]

1. Excellent...thanks for the update.

[Hoopla Phil]

2. Thanks for the update. Too often these things never get the full

attention that they deserve.

[MyrnaLoy]

3. unrec

for being a very anecdotal and rare incident.

[DWC]

6. Nothing "anecdotal and rare" about this at all

Eells says, “That’s one of the old clichés you hear a lot: concealed means concealed.” I thought about that for a second and then asked, “So people could have them, and we wouldn’t know?” Eells’s response? “People DO have them, and you don’t know.”

Guns on campus, just like drugs and condums - “People DO have them, and you don’t know.”

Semper Fi,

[TheWraith]

14. And yet much more common than the rifle shootings you love to post.

So you have a wonderfully selective idea of anecdotal.

[Tuesday Afternoon]

19. that is rich

especially coming from you.

[AtheistCrusader]

25. *Irony meter explodes*

[Doctor_J]

4. What a country

is it any wonder we've gone from the envy and model for the world to a 3rd-world laughingstock?

[GreenStormCloud]

5. I take it that you oppose being able to defend oneself from violent criminals.

What do you see as wrong with self-defense?

[oneshooter]

7. Somebody might get hurt? n/t

[gejohnston]

9. That is because of our trade policies and under-funding

our school and infrastructure. Not some medieval nonsense that commoners may not defend themselves against robbers and sociopaths.

[Doctor_J]

12. And the fact that we have hundreds of shootings per day

If you want to justify all of this on second amendment grounds and other "medieval nonsense", OK, but at least admit that our gun culture is also the cause of much snickering and head-shaking within the civilized world

[gejohnston]

13. not very well traveled are you?

I mean other than small talk with the Club Med bartender in Cancun. First, duty to retreat is medieval. Of course I always wondered duty to whom, but I digress. It comes from English common law and dates back to the middle ages, which is why you see it in the commonwealth countries. Those common law foundations were laid by aristocrats that believed in the divine right of kings. Castle doctrine is more modern, a 19th century outgrowth of the enlightenment. The individual right to own guns is not unique to the US. France comes to mind.

Why admit something something that is not true? Even if it were true, why should we give a rat's ass? They would not give shit any more than they give a shit about being equal partners in "free trade." Our anti science religious fundamentalists might cause snickering and head-shaking, but not our gun culture. Even if that were the case, who cares? They don't give a shit about things we and others may find equally unholy about them. They all have things worth snickering about. Many of these "civilized" countries also have thriving gun cultures. May or may not be as large and has differences, like anything else.
Jamaica and Mexico has hundreds if not thousands of shootings a day certainly has nothing to do with their gun laws. The countries GDP has nothing to do with it because the most of the problem is the same industry in the three countries, organized crime and drugs. Please don't drag out the debunked by Wikileaks canard about semiautomatic carbines from Wal Mart magically turning into machine guns and rocket launchers as they cross the border.

Personally, I have a problem with the non defined term "civilized." What is "civilized"? Mostly it was a term imperialistic powers called themselves while calling those they invaded and occupied "savage" even when those "uncivilized savages" would have equally rich if not longer history, complex social institution, and had much to offer in art, science etc. Do you find New Zealand's gun culture as "uncivilized" as ours? How about Germany's?

[SteveM]

21. Good post, esp. regarding mid-ages & Enlightenment influences. nt

[iverglas]

41. wtf??

Wind you up and off you go? Who the hell said anything about "duty to retreat"?

One knows that it offends the testosterone-driven sensibilities of a certain segment of the population to be restrained from killing anyone who gets in their way, but the requirement that a person avoid injuring or killing another human being is really a very modern practice. It comes along with that "right to life" thing that civilized societies recognize. It actually did precede the firm recognition of that right, I imagine, just as laws against murder did. Those things just seem kind of, well, normal and decent to normal, decent people in many times and places.

It comes from English common law and dates back to the middle ages, which is why you see it in the commonwealth countries.

Mm hmm. Kind of like laws against murder and all the rest of your criminal and civil law comes from English common law. Why do you hate America?

You do know, of course -- you really can't help but, the number of times I've explained it -- that there is no such thing as this "duty to retreat" in Canadian law, and I'm actually quite confident you won't find it in any other Commonwealth country's legal system. You really aren't a legal scholar and you ought to acknowledge this to yourself and the world; it would spare you making a spectacle of yourself as you have here.

What there is, in the law of Canada, for example, and I'm quite confident that it's in the law of every other comparable nation on the face of the earth, is a prohibition on using force unless the person using it reasonably believes that they are at risk of death or serious injury and that there is no reasonable alternative to using force in order to avert death or serious injury. "Retreat", known to normal, decent people as "avoid", is one possible option among whatever options may be available in a particular set of circumstances.

The individual right to own guns is not unique to the US.

Absolutely right. There is an individual right to own guns in Canada. If there weren't, there would be no process for judicial review of a refusal to issue a licence to possess firearms.


You responded to the statement admit that our gun culture is also the cause of much snickering and head-shaking within the civilized world by saying Why admit something something that is not true?

And one snickers and shakes one's head again. Of course it's true. Snicker and head-shake.

Even if it were true, why should we give a rat's ass?

Aw, you shouldn't, of course. It doesn't matter a whit to you what the rest of the world thinks of you. You have no need for credibility on the world stage!

They would not give shit any more than they give a shit about being equal partners in "free trade."

What are you on about now? You're really suggesting that the other NAFTA partners, for example, Canada and Mexico, have benefited disproportionately from "free trade"? If you're this devoid of a clue, you should try getting one. The beneficiaries of "free trade" are transnational corporations, a majority of which are not Canadian or Mexican. Ask a small farmer in Mexico or a person employed in the forestry sector in Canada how free trade has benefited them. Google softwood lumber.

What has this got to do with anything anyway?

Our anti science religious fundamentalists might cause snickering and head-shaking, but not our gun culture. Even if that were the case, who cares?

In a way, that's true -- that your gun culture doesn't cause just snickering and head-shaking; but neither does the ascendancy of your religions right. Both phenomena cause both the snickering and just kind of gobsmacked aghastness and genuine concern for the future of the world if they spread, or even if they just slowly drag the US back to the stone age.

And if you don't care, why carry on with this disputing of the obvious facts? The "gun culture" of the US is very definitely the cause of a lot of head-shaking in the outside world. Trust the rest of the world when we say this.

The view from Toronto, on a quick google:

http://www.nowtoronto.com/daily/news/story.cfm?content=178636

But Loughner is a product of gun culture and so is Palin. America's problem is not its politicians, it's all about guns and the Second Amendment. The right to own guns is deeply embedded in American life. There is no process in place to prevent unhinged characters like Loughner from packing and there won't be any until the National Rifle Association and its trigger-happy gang lose their influence and the constitution's Second Amendment is reconsidered.

Ironically, Giffords herself, though she received only a D+ rating from the NRA, voted for legislation that praised the NRA and its feeble Eddie Eagle Gun Safety program. And, as she commented fearlessley, when her constituency offices were threatened last year, "I own a glock pistol, and I'm a good shot."

Pointing to Palin does as much good in explaining this tragedy as dismissing Loughner as a crackpot. Opinions don't kill people, mental instability doesn't kill people. A poisonous political environment doesn't kill people. Guns do.

If Americans want to do some soul searching, they should take a good long look at their constitution.

And from Vancouver:

http://thetyee.ca/Views/2004/01/07/Living_Next_Door_to_a_Gun_Culture/

The Canadian Firearms Centre in 1998 estimated that the US has 30 times more firearms than Canada does--222 million compared to 7.4 million. Americans own 76 million handguns, compared to about 1.2 million in Canada. Two-thirds of US homicides involve firearms; only a third of Canadian homicides do. And US handgun homicide rates are 15 times higher than Canada's.

... Given the huge numbers of guns in the US, only about one in 7,000 is ever involved in a fatal shooting. (Ironically, we're more "efficient"-- one Canadian gun in 5,300 is so involved.) But the sheer availability of guns in the US makes them attractive for use in robberies and suicides as well as homicides.

This is not to argue for Canadian-style gun control in the US. It would be politically and administratively impossible to register and control the use of a quarter-billion firearms, especially in a country that makes a fetish of them. So for the foreseeable future, Americans are stuck with their gun culture.

But it ought to give us, as the Americans' closest neighbours, something to ponder: Why does the US wince at every GI's death in Iraq, while ignoring every child's gunshot death at home? Why do Americans tolerate 31,000 such deaths a year? Perhaps the poet with the answer is not Virgil, but Dylan Thomas, who told us: "After the first death, there is no other."

Crawford Kilian teaches at Capilano College in North Vancouver, and spends too much time online debating with American gun lovers.

No, I am not Crawford Kilian. ;)

And from the former PM who armed himself with a soapstone loon:

http://www.ctv.ca/CTVNews/Politics/20070429/chretien_guns_070429/

OTTAWA — Former prime minister Jean Chretien says he was shocked to discover how easy it was for the student-killer at Virginia Tech to obtain guns under U.S. law.

In an interview, Chretien expressed astonishment at the permissive gun culture in the United States, while defending the measures his government introduced in Canada.

... "It's a lot harder to get weapons here in Canada than in the U.S.," Chretien said.

"I was pretty stunned to see how easily he managed to get himself armed to the teeth without any trouble. He would have had to answer a lot more questions here."

And my goodness, from a blog in the community paper in a town somewhere in deepest Alberta:

http://www.tabertimes.com/blogs/2009-11-27-15-52-59/730-american-gun-culture-foreign-to-canadian.html

... For all those Dirty Harry wannabees out there, they no longer have to have that social awkwardness of their bulky sidearms bulging inside their cashmere sweaters as one clothing line states that I googled for their clothing line catch phrase of, “It’s not concealed if they know you’re carrying it.”

I can just imagine the snickers and pointing I would endure tasting the flon at my aunt Gloria’s dinner party as my Gloc 17 Pants Pisser had a visible imprint bulging against my dinner jacket.
Compounding the discomfort I was feeling that your average citizen has need for such clothing was the warning sign I read as I gassed up in Shelby, Montana.

There I was opening the door to the convenience store when the sign warned me of not bringing my rifles and ammunition into the store while making a purchase.

Is the gun culture so commonplace in Montana that people need to be warned about bringing in a loaded gun after a long hunting trip while purchasing their gas, coffee and Twinkies? There is the obvious risk the clerk may think you are trying to rob the place, but I guess for the more mild-mannered gun owner out there, maybe they’re afraid you may get a little too excited when you find out the danish is half off.

No shortage of snickering and head-shaking, and some genuine aghastness too.

If you really don't get this, well, perhaps I have helped.

[gejohnston]

50. really?

Murder is not the same as duty to retreat, so for me to call that over generalization absurd, it would be an understatement.
Remember Ian Thompson? You said he had a duty to retreat. You were appalled that he used one of his revolvers to defend his house. The Crown prosecutor made public statements to the effect he was taking a stand against vigilantism. That is duty to retreat in practice.
As for the rest, I don't give a shit what a couple of newspaper writers bitch about. We do the same shake our heads about Canadians clubbing baby seals, and it being illegal to video the commercial slaughter.

[iverglas]

51. wtf? (edited)

I'm sorry, I am just unable to follow the twisty turns of your thought processes.

Murder is not the same as duty to retreat, so for me to call that over generalization absurd, it would be an understatement.

What can you possibly be talking about??

Remember Ian Thompson? You said he had a duty to retreat. You were appalled that he used one of his revolvers to defend his house. The Crown prosecutor made public statements to the effect he was taking a stand against vigilantism. That is duty to retreat in practice.

No, I have no idea what that's about. A search for

site:www.democraticunderground.com "ian thompson" iverglas

produces zero results.

As for the rest, I don't give a shit what a couple of newspaper writers bitch about.

Yes, I know this. You don't give a shit what the rest of the world thinks about you. The rest of the world is well aware of this. It's one of the things that endears the people of the USofA to the rest of the world, doncha know.

We do the same shake our heads about Canadians clubbing baby seals, and it being illegal to video the commercial slaughter.

Christ you guys are weird. This "baby seals" thing. You just don't hesitate to display your ignorance at all, do you?

Seen any videos of cattle being slaughtered lately? Want to explain the differences between the two phenomena to me?



edit -- Thomson, no "p". The gun-happy guy in Welland. The only update on the story I find is from a complete piece of right-wing shit writing in the National Post ... taken here from the Edmonton Journal:

http://www.edmontonjournal.com/opinion/Right+self+defence+under+assault/5420519/story.html?cid=megadrop_story

Eventually, charges against Thomson were dropped, but not until after much public pressure had been brought on prosecutors. Without public outrage, it is unlikely the Crown would have decided on its own to leave Thomson alone.

"Public outrage" means the pressure brought to bear by a small segment of the public, composed pretty much entirely of far right-wing Conservative Party voters. Sometimes the Crown just realizes that it won't get a conviction, even if the reasons stink.

In that same opinion piece, the same piece of right-wing shit says:

In 1999, Martin shot two burglars who had broken into his remote Norfolk farm in the middle of the night. He killed one and injured the other.

Despite the fact Martin was afraid for his life and police were more than half an hour way, he was the one officers charged when they finally arrived at his home.

In the end, Martin spent more time in prison than his surviving attacker.

Presumably he gets paid to lie. He obviously isn't paid to know what he's talking about and tell the truth about it. You'll remember Tony Martin. The guy who shot a fleeing teenaged burglar ("attacker"? no) in the back, the guy who was a well-known bigot who had talked about killing gypsies, the guy who was under no threat and at risk of no harm from the fleeing teenager whatsoever.

It's sad when a movement's heroes are insane violent racists, isn't it?

http://www.nationalpost.com/opinion/columnists/lorne-gunter.html

"A former managing editor of the now defunct Alberta Report, ..."

You undoubtedly don't know what Alberta Report (and its sister publications) were/are. Imagine if Rush Limbaugh and Glenn Beck and Bill O'Reilly and Ann Coulter got together and published a magazine ...

"He is currently the editorial director of the Canadian Centre for Libertarian Studies, a member of the editorial board of conservativeforum.org and the incoming president of Civitas - a society for conservative and libertarian academics, think-tankers, lobbyists and journalists."

Yes, these be the standard-bearers for "self-defence". Sad to be you guys, isn't it?

[gejohnston]

54. Whatever

You don't give a shit what the rest of the world thinks about you. The rest of the world is well aware of this. It's one of the things that endears the people of the USofA to the rest of the world, doncha know.

Let me rephrase that, what should they care since it is not affecting them in the least.

This "baby seals" thing. You just don't hesitate to display your ignorance at all, do you?

I take it you are not a member of the Paul Watson fan club. Too bad, he and Farley Mowat are two of my favorite Canadians.

"Public outrage" means the pressure brought to bear by a small segment of the public, composed pretty much entirely of far right-wing Conservative Party voters. Sometimes the Crown just realizes that it won't get a conviction, even if the reasons stink.

says who besides you?

You'll remember Tony Martin. The guy who shot a fleeing teenaged burglar ("attacker"? no) in the back, the guy who was a well-known bigot who had talked about killing gypsies, the guy who was under no threat and at risk of no harm from the fleeing teenager whatsoever.

Name does not ring a bell, but I can not find anything about him being a racist or shooting the teenager in the back.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/1437390/Farmer-Tony-Martin-released.html
http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/tonymartin
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tony_Martin_(farmer)

You undoubtedly don't know what Alberta Report (and its sister publications) were/are. Imagine if Rush Limbaugh and Glenn Beck and Bill O'Reilly and Ann Coulter got together and published a magazine ...

Correct, I never heard of the Alberta Report. Sounds like I'm not missing anything either.

Yes, these be the standard-bearers for "self-defence". Sad to be you guys, isn't it?

Not standard bearers at all. So you do oppose people defending themselves, or are you saying that it is a euphemism for racially motivated murder? The Temple student was a Klan member waiting and hoping for a black teen to come by hoping to shoot one? What are you saying?

[iverglas]

56. you read the Guardian report??

You missed this?

As to his mental state, the prosecution depicted Martin as an angry man. It pointed out that he had violent views about burglars and especially about travellers - Barras was from a travellers' community. He had once talked of "putting gypsies in one of his fields surrounded by barbed wire and machine gunning them".

The man was inhinged, but criminally responsible. He was convicted. (Since the victim of his rage was dead, his testimony as to who was where when he fired the particular fatal shot could not be contradicted.)

Check out the discussion page for the wiki article. It starts off with:

"This really needs an NPOVing. It's written as a defence of Martin"

And check the other Guardian article referred to, not written by quite such a bleeding heart:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2000/apr/20/tonymartin.ukcrime2

Apart from thieves, Martin's pet hate was Gypsies. Norwich crown court heard that the farmer had talked of putting Gypsies in the middle of a field, surrounding it with barbed wire and machine gunning them. Fred Barras, the boy he killed, was both of these things: a Gypsy and a thief.

... Despite claims by Martin's friends and his mother that he hated shooting, he was involved in a number of incidents with guns. In June 1976, the farmer is alleged to have gone to a friend's house in some distress and brandished a first world war revolver: a shot was fired and a pigeon killed. In December 1987 he had an argument at his brother's house over some property. Martin is said to have got very upset and used a shotgun to smash windows.

In 1994 he had his shotgun certificate revoked after he found a man scrumping for apples in his orchard and shot a hole in the back of his vehicle. After the shooting of Fred Barras and Brendan Fearon, police recovered an old rusty shotgun from Martin's garage: another gun he should not have had without a shotgun certificate. The guns, Martin said, were for shooting pigeons.

... A committal hearing heard that he believed "Hitler was right" in his policies towards Gypsies. His views would have pleased his uncle by marriage, Andrew Fountaine, a founder of the National Front.

Martin was a regular visitor to Fountaine's home, at Narford Hall, near Swaffham, Norfolk, not far from Bleak House. It was here that the fascist leader organised regular Aryan summer camps, which prompted the Home Office on one occasion to refuse entry permission to a number of continental fascists.

So you do oppose people defending themselves, or are you saying that it is a euphemism for racially motivated murder?

When will this stop? When will you and the rest of you stop making ugly false statements like "So you do oppose people defending themselves"? What basis, what right, do you have for saying things like that? I want an answer. Why do you think you can get away with posting ugly false statements like that about another member of this website?

I put "self-defence" in quotation marks for a reason in my sentence. I don't just throw punctuation around randomly. In this situation, it means so-called self-defence:

Yes, these be the standard-bearers for "self-defence". Sad to be you guys, isn't it?

This is a very common function of quotation marks and you really ought to recognize it.

Tony Martin WAS NOT defending himself.
Ian Thomson WAS NOT defending himself.
You or someone else might think that what they did was legitimate for some other reason, but they WERE NOT defending themselves.

But there is the right-wing turd from the National Post -- and if you check the annals of this board you will find many of the same mind, as you will find all over the bleeding internet where the right wing squats and poops -- portraying Tony Martin as some beleaguered little farmer just defending himself against bad men. He wasn't. He was a violent, racist, unpleasant person.

And frankly, all the available evidence indicates that Robert Eells is a goon, and that's my opinion based on the available evidence. I do not consider someone with such an obvious agenda to be a credible source when it comes to an incident like the one in question. He's an obviously immature, self-absorbed gun militant. This doesn't mean he's lying; absolutely; I simply prefer better evidence before coming to any conclusions about that.

[gejohnston]

58. by reading between the lines

You assume the worse of the person even when the police investigation says otherwise. Even then you accuse them of being racists, goons, liars etc, with little to no evidence.
Sorry, people throwing firebombs at your house while you are in it is a threat to you. Thomson was defending himself. How you come to any other conclusion is frankly beyond me.
What evidence do you have that Eells is a goon? How is he obviously immature? Because he refuses to be a victim? Stand up against an injustice being done to him? Because he likes Sam Colt? Because he lived in an apartment close to school? Because he would not pay tribute to the local gangsters? To you all gun rights activists, or even someone who disagrees with you is labeled a "gun militant." What more evidence do you need? I could say Mr. Carr is a racist because he downplayed the incident as being racially motivated. The police established the timeline as he fired after getting shot. Period. Shit, you are starting to sound like a creationist.
Martin may or may not have been. He sounds a little mentally ill. Since college kids moving into a neighborhood is destroying the social fabric, why could not Martin say the same thing? There is still no evidence that he shot anyone in the back. He may have been defending himself. The article were mostly second and third hand accounts by people in the village who did not like him. If you can say Eells is immature, self-absorbed goon, I can say Martin is being smeared because if his eccentricities. If these other shooting really occurred, why did not the police remove his shotguns and licence before? Why was he not prosecuted before?
Both the left and the right have no problem with dishonesty if it serves their purpose, we both know that.

[iverglas]

64. my god, man

Tony Martin has been a cause célèbre of the right wing for years and years. You can find all you need to know about him with a click of your mouse. "There is still no evidence that he shot anyone in the back."?? What are you thinking? What are you playing at? He was CONVICTED of shooting the teenaged burglar. He was CONVICTED of manslaughter, purely because it could not be proved that he did what everyone knew he did: lie in wait for them, i.e. commit murder. There was a body with bullet holes in it; what can you mean by "no evidence that he shot anyone in the back"??

His firearms licence WAS revoked because of his earlier behaviours. Because his firearms predated registration, they presumably were not known to the authorities. The question isn't why they weren't taken away; the question is WHY HE KEPT THEM ILLEGALLY. What are you thinking??

It isn't an "eccentricity" to talk about wanting to commit the mass murder of people selected because of their ethnicity. There's another really good term for that sort of thing.

As far as destroying the social fabric of rural Norfolk: yeah, people who were not good white English folk moved in. You evidently know not much about travellers in the UK or elsewhere in Europe. It's a complex situation, travellers come in various ethnicities, they suffer various forms and degrees of persecution ... I believe an article I linked to discussed some of their problems and the evolution of their situation in Norfolk in particular.

A lot of the problems are obviously chicken and egg, as so many such problems are: the group is wilfully excluded and may also be disproportionately deviant; which came first? What other persecuted minorities might we decide to blame for their persecution? We have another situation in which we can either believe that some people are bad by birth, by virtue of their ethnicity or skin colour or religion, or look for the problems that lead to a prevalence of certain behaviours in a certain group.

A community whose social fabric is based on a particular ethnicity or religion or skin colour to the exclusion of others, and that takes it upon itself to try to enforce that exclusion, is not exactly what most people have in mind when they talk about community.

Tony Martin should perhaps have had some nice therapy. Meanwhile, he was violent, he was in illegal possession of firearms, and he committed a serious crime. He was not defending himself. Period.

And no, Thomson was not defending himself. His property was being set fire to -- a very serious offence indeed. But he was NOT in danger of losing his life or being seriously injured, because all he bleeding had to do was walk away from the fire.

You do yourself and your cause no favours when you adopt these sorts of people and set about trying to portray them as heroes of self-defence. That was pretty much the point I was making.

I posted a link to Eells's facebook page in the earlier thread. Did you bother to look at it?

http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=624405923

The quote about staring down the barrel of a gun -- find my earlier post to read it -- which was obviously written before the incident in question (he was in hospital when I read it) is now gone. What he has chosen to post on Facebook shows me an immature, self-interested twit. Knowing as I now do that he is a long-time gun militant (fairly obvious from the pre-existing facebook page to start with) rounds out the picture. One of his heroes is David Petraeus, ffs. Does this tell you nothing? Is Petraeus's mooted presidential candidacy likely to be Democratic? Reading between the lines isn't really all that difficult.

[gejohnston]

66. it is complex

Yes he was convicted of manslaughter, does not mean he shot anyone in the back. It means he wounded someone. In duty to flee states, that would be a typical charge in the US. What was I thinking? Why wasn't he charged with assault with a deadly weapon or other relevant charge. As for him being being a hero of the right wing, I don't read UK right wing stuff. I don't even waste my time with US right wing stuff.

As far as destroying the social fabric of rural Norfolk: yeah, people who were not good white English folk moved in. You evidently know not much about travellers in the UK or elsewhere in Europe. It's a complex situation, travellers come in various ethnicities, they suffer various forms and degrees of persecution ... I believe an article I linked to discussed some of their problems and the evolution of their situation in Norfolk in particular.

A lot of the problems are obviously chicken and egg, as so many such problems are: the group is wilfully excluded and may also be disproportionately deviant; which came first? What other persecuted minorities might we decide to blame for their persecution? We have another situation in which we can either believe that some people are bad by birth, by virtue of their ethnicity or skin colour or religion, or look for the problems that lead to a prevalence of certain behaviours in a certain group.

What the fuck are you talking about? People are sometimes clannish. As for being bad, it has nothing to do with certain groups. Sociopaths are born, not made. Just like pedophiles. Some steal millions on Wall Street, others steal a couple of bucks with a knife or gun. There is no real difference between the two.

And no, Thomson was not defending himself. His property was being set fire to -- a very serious offence indeed. But he was NOT in danger of losing his life or being seriously injured, because all he bleeding had to do was walk away from the fire.

Still don't buy it. It was reasonable for him to fear for his life. I seriously doubt he would be able to just walk away. That may be Canadian law, but it is still repugnant and unjust.

A community whose social fabric is based on a particular ethnicity or religion or skin colour to the exclusion of others, and that takes it upon itself to try to enforce that exclusion, is not exactly what most people have in mind when they talk about community.

I honestly think that is Eells' problem with the neighborhood. Residents calling the cops on him and his friends even though they were hanging out on the porch minding their own business. The block captain being appalled at the injustice of Eells defending himself "and too many students being here." I am not defending the clannishness and racism of Martin's neighbors, I agree with you on that. However, I refuse to be a hypocrite and not have the same opinion of Eells' neighbors based on the articles you linked.

The quote about staring down the barrel of a gun -- find my earlier post to read it -- which was obviously written before the incident in question (he was in hospital when I read it) is now gone. What he has chosen to post on Facebook shows me an immature, self-interested twit. Knowing as I now do that he is a long-time gun militant (fairly obvious from the pre-existing facebook page to start with) rounds out the picture. One of his heroes is David Petraeus, ffs. Does this tell you nothing? Is Petraeus's mooted presidential candidacy likely to be Democratic? Reading between the lines isn't really all that difficult.

The quote is still there. To me his facebook looks like just another 21 year-old bass player. But then, I try not to be judgmental. He does not seem to be a very deep thinker. To be honest, no. There are a number of reasons why Petraeus inspires him. So, not it does not tell me anything of any consequence. But none of that fucking matters, so I don't care. Still does not change the facts of the case, like he was shot simply for saying no or just for the hell of it. Does not change the fact that he had every legal and moral right to shoot back even if the neighbors think it was unjust. If you were on a jury, would to vote to convict an innocent person based on who he might vote for?
Want to know "those who inspire me" list? Here it is:
Edward Abbey
Thomas Paine
Bernie Sanders
President Lincoln
John Muir
Hugh C. Thompson
what does that tell you about me? Honestly, I would like to know.

[iverglas]

71. sorry, have to beg off

Parliament has resumed and work is coming at me from all directions, even the private sector ... just becaue it never rains but what it pours. I fear my days of dalliance in the dungeon have ended for a while, or at least grown fewer and farther between. I must bid everyone farewell for the nonce. Anybody who sees this might mention it to anybody who doesn't.

In parting, what your list of admirees says about you: Hmm. I guess that there were no women in the world you inhabit! (or people of ethnicities other than northern European) And your world ends at the borders of the USofA. Except when it involves imperial adventures outside those borders.

I do Tarot cards too!

[gejohnston]

72. Only because

those are the ones off the top of my head. There are other folks for sure. However, Kijirō Nambu on my list would have you screaming about the "gun militant" in me. Besides, my WW2 veteran would not quite understand.

[PavePusher]

16. So what?

Is the USA obligated to mold itself after the example of the those countries?

As I recall, we fought one war to seperate ourselves from one of them, then came back and saved their asses... twice.

Fuck 'em and their "snickering".

[SteveM]

20. On "snickering and head-shaking:"

If all this country had to worry about was snickering and head-shaking, we could look to a far brighter future. The stylistic behavior of other people toward this nation is not a big concern to me. What IS a bigger concern is our loss of status as a revolutionary society which serves as a model for other countries, and our loss of both the ability and will to correct our own deficiencies, even as we maintain over-all prosperity. The key to my thesis is "loss;" which means we had that status at one time.

And at NO time has our country not had both the right and the fact of robust firearm ownership.

"gun culture" has little or no bearing on our problems.

[We_Have_A_Problem]

27. Do you have any examples?

Some news stories from something other than a US based source perhaps?

Bear in mind though, our first amendment nonsense is also looked down upon and is the cause of much snickering and head shaking in parts of the civilized world...as are our 4th and 5th amendment protections, and come to think of it, our entire social structure. Has been since the late 18th century.

[iverglas]

52. check my earlier post

I offered up a host of examples. Did you really think they were hard to find??

Bear in mind though, our first amendment nonsense is also looked down upon and is the cause of much snickering and head shaking in parts of the civilized world

Really? Comparable nations that do not have comparable guarantees of freedom of speech, belief and the press? Got any examples?

:snicker:

...as are our 4th and 5th amendment protections, and come to think of it, our entire social structure.

It really is sad to see this stuff. It really is. It's sad not just for you people, but for the rest of the world that has to endure your uninformed arrogance and its consequences.

How too many people in the US see the world:

[Euromutt]

15. What makes you think either is true, and even if they are, that they're mutually exclusive?

Insofar as there has been "snickering" about American gun culture in other countries, it goes back at least as far as the Roaring Twenties and Prohibition, if not further. Moreover, nobody likes a superpower, and one way to reconcile oneself with a sense of inferiority or envy is to employ the "sour grapes" tactic. The French and the British have been doing it since the Suez Crisis, which finally drove home the lesson that they were no longer independent players on the world stage, but junior partners who needed to clear their overseas adventures with the Big Kahuna. They've been looking for things to feel superior to America about ever since. Around the same time, the Soviet Union wheeled out the retort of "But at your place, they lynch negroes."

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

32. You know...

...just the other day I was checking on my application to immigrate to Darfur...

:sarcasm:

[DanTex]

8. So how is this new information?

The point is, the student first decided to go outside for a smoke in a dangerous neighborhood at 1am. Then, he didn't give up his money to a robber who was holding a gun. Then he got shot.

It's true that the gun he was carrying didn't physically cause him to get shot, obviously. It's still not clear whether he pulled his own gun before or after getting shot, but that doesn't change the fact that the gun influenced his decisions: without the belief that the gun would protect him, he may have been less likely to go outside at that hour, and he would almost surely have been less likely to resist the demands of a criminal with a gun.


PS Isn't it considered unsafe to CC without a holster?

[gejohnston]

10. telepathic or tele-psychology ?

It's still not clear whether he pulled his own gun before or after getting shot, but that doesn't change the fact that the gun influenced his decisions: without the belief that the gun would protect him, he may have been less likely to go outside at that hour, and he would almost surely have been less likely to resist the demands of a criminal with a gun.

The timeline in the articles were pretty clear to the rest of us.
The gun influenced his decision? Maybe the fact that he likes to stand outside at any time he decides influenced his deciding to carry. You assume everyone thinks the way you would think but the real world does not work that way.

Why should he or anyone else give in to demands of a criminal or anyone else? Sorry, I don't buy the don't resist and there will be a magically created civilized society. It leads to a more predatory society by giving sociopaths almost free reign.

[GreenStormCloud]

11. Read the article.

It confirms the timeline and also include some of Eells comments. It confirms that Eells shot in self-defense. There was one poster who questioned if it was a self-defense.

[PavePusher]

17. So people shouldn't sit on their own porch at 1 A.M.?

Fuck that noise.

[rrneck]

18. So your recommendation

is to concede the field to those who would do us harm.

I will not hide indoors for fear of anyone. I will move about as I please and do as I will as long as it doesn't hurt others.

I see no reason to grant to criminals some perverse street level form of prior restraint.

[gravity556]

22. What's unclear about the timeline?

The phrase "returned fire" is pretty cut and dried-it means shooting back, thus "returning". And why should law abiding citizens be run off the street by shitbag crooks and thugs? "Just give them what they want and they won't hurt you!" Horseshit. Give them what they want and their sense of entitlement and willingness to do violence grows exponentially. Shoot them in the face, then they won't victimize anyone else.

"Gimme your money!"

*BANG BANG BANG BANG*

"No."

Maybe the crooks would feel a bit less bold if they knew that, instead of cash, they were very likely to end up with bullet holes in important organs they would be less likely to engage in criminal acts. What do you think would happen to the crime rate then? Suppose it might drop at a greater rate than it currently is?

Your insistence that it's better to just lock the doors, bar the windows, turn on the alarm and let the guard dogs loose than to stand up to these shitheels is depressing. And that attitude, that the innocent should live in fear of criminals is why neighborhoods go to shit. People see the shitbag element moving in, and rather than stand up and say "take your gang hangout/crackhouse elsewhere, they close the blinds and put up security doors and extra locks and alarms and stick their heads in the sand. Or flee the neighborhood entirely, leaving the rot to spread.

I'm not advocating vigilantism, though burning the neighborhood crackhouse to the ground would probably be the most effective way to communicate displeasure to the denizens of the crackhouse. But a neighborhood watch, calling the cops on EVERY violation observed, photographing vehicles swinging by to buy drugs, installing motion sensor floodlights, CCTV cameras pointed in the direction of the problem house and regular group walks through the neighborhood would be just as effective.

But hiding in the dark and hoping that you're not the next victim of predatory fuckhead criminals is not. The shitbags are massively outnumbered by the good folks-there's no reason that the crooks shouldn't be hiding in the dark, hoping that noise outside isn't the cops getting ready to kick in their door with a search warrant. The crooks should be the ones afraid. Instead we glorify the crooks. Crack dealers and thugs put out albums, bragging about criminal exploits, and make money hand over fist. Instead of massive outrage, we, as a country scream for more. The attitude of "I'll take what I want and if you try to stop me, my friends and I are going to put you in a grave" gets spread further and further and becomes more accepted.

You know you've seen it-upper class kids from the suburbs sporting the lastest in gang fashions, apeing gang signs and giving it their all to emulate whatever gangster rapper is popular. Don't get me wrong-I like a bit of anti-social bent to my punk rock (and Blink-182 is NOT a fucking punk band, but I digress). The difference is that my folks taught me right from wrong. Not as abstract concepts, but as real things. They taught me respect for others as well. So maybe a good bit of blame goes to the parents for failing to go to the trouble of teaching those simple ideas.
I see it sometimes with my friends who have kids-Junior demands a candy bar or toy, and if he gets denied, he throws a fucking tantrum until his mom buys the candy bar. They can't understand why the kid throws a tantrum EVERY time they get within 10 feet of candy. It's because the kid has learned that pitching a fit gets him what he wants. Same thing goes for the criminal shitbags-they feel they're entitled to your money or posessions and if you don't hand it over, they lose their shit because they have no self control. They never learned it.

Of course, every kid throws that "gimme a candy bar" tantrum. I clearly remember the single time I did so. My dad dragged my ass out to the car so that the other shoppers didn't have to listen to a screaming kid (consideration for other people-another dying concept in our society), and when we got home, he striped my ass with a belt. Problem solved, lesson learned.

[DanTex]

23. It's the Enema Man and Snoopy Snoopy Poop Dogg...

[gravity556]

29. Oh lord, I'm overawed by the flowing eloquence of your rebuttal.

I'm sure you worked very hard on it. You get a gold star.

[Atypical Liberal]

24. Awesome post.

Fantastic post. It sums up everything that is right about standing up for yourself and everything that is wrong with capitulation.

[Iktomiwicasa]

36. Wish there were a system...

...to add *points* or some such thing to individual posts. Well written, and full of truth, friend.

[AtheistCrusader]

26. HEAVEN FORFEND A SMOKER HAVE THE COURTESY TO GO OUTSIDE

Fucking serves him right, getting shot. Goddamn smokers. Sheesh.

[We_Have_A_Problem]

28. Are you seriously suggesting...

...the student should have cowered in his home in fear rather than live like a free man and walk outside?

Really?

I'm frequently in dangerous neighborhoods at 1:00am. Not because I'm doing anything i shouldn't be, but because I'm an adult, i live in a major metropolitan area, and it is not uncommon for me to come home after 1:00am - having to pass through some questionable territory en route.

Are you suggesting that only those who can live their entire lives in gated, guarded communities deserve such freedoms? How incredibly elitist and utterly disgusting of you

[iverglas]

30. I posted my update in the old thread

Seemed reasonable ...

But I'm happy to add it here.

And no, some non-eye-witness report in some media outlet does NOT "make it clear" who shot first.

As I've said before, it makes it clear what Eells's version of the event is.




http://www.breezejmu.org/news/article_6a4ca756-e259-11e0-af1e-001a4bcf6878.html

Robert Eells, a student at Temple University and advocate for concealed carry, was shot in his stomach in an attempted robbery. One of his attempted robbers shot him in the stomach, but Eells shot back and hit the robber in the leg and torso.

Eells said the experience didn't change his views on concealed carry.

"As long as they are responsible and mature, concealed carry on campus shouldn't cause a problem," Eells said.

Quelle surprise.

A pre-existing gun militant.

http://blogs.phillymag.com/the_philly_post/2011/09/16/temple-university-guns-town

After the Eells incident, will more students soon be walking the streets packing more than just lunch? Eells supports responsible gun ownership and says, “not just any jock or burnout should be getting and carrying guns.” He believes you need to be both responsible and mentally and emotionally stable. ...

... Another issue: To protect yourself walking home after class, you’d actually need to bring the gun to class. Temple has a strict no-weapons policy for all campus areas, and Eells confirms that having a license to carry is no exception. But if students are genuinely afraid to travel to and from Temple without protection, they might consider carrying anyway if they don’t think they’ll get caught.

Eells says, “That’s one of the old clichés you hear a lot: concealed means concealed.” I thought about that for a second and then asked, “So people could have them, and we wouldn’t know?” Eells’s response? “People DO have them, and you don’t know.”

I wonder how he knows.

And I wonder what assurances he might think it reasonable to require to ensure that people carrying firearms around the world are "both responsible and mentally and emotionally stable". None, is my guess, any more than any other gun militant would even entertain the idea of requiring such assurances.

And now a word from the community:

http://temple-news.com/2011/09/12/community-member-advocates-unity

... James Carr, 53-year-old North Philadelphia native, didn’t know much about the shooting, but said, “Them guys was just totally out looking for trouble. <They’re> 14 and 15 , <they were> out after curfew with a gun. It could have been me, it could have been you and it could have been anybody.”

... Carr believes that a misunderstanding exists between students and the community because of prejudiced attitudes.

“I’m quite sure when the school has orientation they advise students…who to fraternize with outside of campus and who not to fraternize with,” Carr said. “Everyone that lives in this community isn’t categorized as a bad person or a person that is not school oriented. They might not go to Temple, but they might go to another school. A lot of times that creates conflict.”

http://temple-news.com/2011/09/12/student-%E2%80%98orientation%E2%80%99-into-philadelphia-unrealistic

... Yet, the influx of rural and even out-of-state students has grown to such a large percentage that urban schools throughout the city have struggled during the past 20 years to maintain a welcoming, yet realistic model of assimilation for those new to Philadelphia.

... However, when price is removed from the equation, the culture-less refugee camp surrounding Temple is a terrible substitute for a neighborhood, even though ex-dormers are dragged through each tier of the residential pyramid.

Meanwhile, Temple perpetuates this unrealistic model by further squeezing its growing residential body into this 8-foot by 8-foot block area, to the detriment of both long-time neighborhood residents and students.

The Sept. 5 shooting between Temple student Robert Eells, 21, and a 15-year old boy is continual evidence of Temple’s unrealistic demands on a neighborhood battered by collegiate congestion. Temple is not only unable to keep up with the housing demands of its students, but has created a Philadelphian purgatory, where culture cannot thrive.

... After this most recent transgression, it’s clear that the tension in Temple’s surrounding community must be resolved. I’m not talking about community relations and flowery rhetoric. I’m talking about college students saturating an area that used to have some semblance of unity.

Complexity.

The very presence of the students in the neighbourhood in question is a factor in the social deterioration of the neighbourhood. Blame the students? Nope. Understand the dynamics and problems and look for solutions.

I wonder how the community really feels about having pistol-packing outsiders move in ...

[GreenStormCloud]

31. The "non-eyewitness" interviewed Eells and reported what he said.

The police have had time to investigate the incident by now.

Here are some articles:
http://articles.philly.com/2011-09-06/news/30118913_1_robbers-shooting-stable-condition

Sophomore Robert Eells, 21, of Chalfont, Bucks County, was sitting with at least one friend in front of their home in the 2300 block of North 12th Street shortly before 2 a.m. when three assailants approached and demanded money. When Eells failed to comply, the assailants opened fire, police said. Eells, struck in the stomach, fired a couple of rounds toward the would-be robbers, wounding one suspect, a 15-year-old boy, in the chest and a leg.

The police are stating the results of their investigation. The thugs fired first.

http://www.theblaze.com/stories/philadelphia-student-carrying-legal-firearm-shoots-it-out-with-armed-robber/

Update: Here is a more recent video that lays out the shooting incident in northern Philadelphia. It confirms all initial reporting in the incident from yesterday, and gives some additional details. Eells is currently in the hospital and is expected to make a full recovery.

Robert Eells, 21-year-old Temple University student, was in front of his off-campus house smoking a cigarette at 1:30Am Monday when a group of teenagers approached him and asked for money. The main suspect- who is 15-years old- allegedly then attempted to rob Eells, who refused the demand for cash.

At that point, police say the suspect started shooting, and hit Eels in the stomach.

But Eels was able to fight back. He drew his own legal pistol and fired, hitting the attacker in the chest and leg.

The video clearly states that the thug drew his gun first and shot first.

So the timeline is clearly established. The thug initiated the robbery, then drew and fired first. Eells then drew and shot back.

The rest of your post is irrelevant.

[iverglas]

38. lord jeezus

So the police report what Eells said, and the media report what the police said Eells said. The police were not there. They do not know what happened.

"The video clearly states"? How gullible are you? If a video on youtube states that the world was created in 6 days 6,000 years ago ... ?

I wasn't there. Neither were you. Eells was, and I'm sure you will forgive me if I don't unquestioningly accept his untested unsworn evidence on that point (even if, may I add, his buddy says the same thing).

The timeline is not clearly established. Eells's allegations are clearly established. They may be true.

The rest of my post was supremely relevant; your statement to the contrary is the genuine irrelevancy.

[GreenStormCloud]

42. I am sure the police interviewed the eyewitness that was with him.

And the rest of your post was irrelevant to the timeline.

Who cares what the community thinks if the person carrying concealed is carrying legally? When I carry I don't both to take a survey of the area I go into to see what they think. I just keep the gun concealed.

Nor have I ever asked what the community thinks before I have rented an apartment.

[gravity556]

33. Ah, I see!

"I wonder how the community really feels about having pistol-packing outsiders move in ..."

Right. Eels was robbed out of self defense! And the 15 year old was just a late night tax collector, forced to shoot a man for his dangerous refusal to comply.

[iverglas]

39. perhaps you do

and you're just spinning madly in an attempt to make sure nobody else does.

Have I got it right? I think so.

[gravity556]

46. So now the Eels is a liar as well as at fault for his own shooting?

And you accuse me of spin? Talk about the pot calling the kettle black! Why do you think Eels is a liar, iverglas? Do you have any reason to back up your spurious accusation, other than your hate of someone who dared to defend himself from a dangerous criminal, or are you just so venomous that you're desperate to try for a little light character assasination? I really am curious to know why you think Eels lied in a police report.

[Name removed]

53. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[gravity556]

61. Classy, iverglas.

So what is it that you've stated then? You don't believe the statement given by Eels and the other witnesses, indicating you believe him to be untruthful, and therefore indicating that he is lying in his statement to police. Unless you're stating that you DO agree that his statement about being fired on first, then drawing his own gun and returning fire (again, "returning", indicative of a responsive action, primarily being fired upon by someone else) made to police is factual. Then you would be right and I would have misrepresented your view, and I would owe you an apology, as would you owe me one for insinuating that I molest my pets, particularly as we would be in agreement that Eels' statement was correct and factual.

[gejohnston]

34. he must know nothing about the incident.

“I’m quite sure when the school has orientation they advise students…who to fraternize with outside of campus and who not to fraternize with,” Carr said. “Everyone that lives in this community isn’t categorized as a bad person or a person that is not school oriented. They might not go to Temple, but they might go to another school. A lot of times that creates conflict.”

Since when was armed robbery and attempted murder simply "prejudice attitudes"?

There is no such thing as "culture-free". A group of people will will develop a culture even in refugee camps.

[iverglas]

40. perhaps you could clarify

Since when was armed robbery and attempted murder simply "prejudice attitudes"?

I wouldn't know. You don't seem to have quoted anything that suggests someone said they were. I doubt that you could, since the question doesn't even begin to make sense. I believe the prejudiced attitudes in question were on the part of the transient residents.

There is no such thing as "culture-free". A group of people will will develop a culture even in refugee camps.

Are transient, armed students camping in this community engaged in developing a culture with the other residents of the community? If you define their activities as developing a culture, is it one that the members of the existing community want to develop in their community? Might they rather retain the culture they have developed themselves, as genuine members of that existing community?

I've been a transient student in a community myself. An older downtown neighbourhood in a mid-sized Ontario town, before the age of gentrification, when large detached houses in the core area with fireplaces and hardwood floors were not in high demand from other kinds of tenants. There were prejudiced attitudes against us, but we maintained our properties and went about our business much as other residents did. We were part of the interim stage -- absentee landlord-owned housing mixed with long-term resident-owned housing -- before the middle-class move back to the inner cities that happened in Ontario starting in the mid-1970s.

The situation in Philadelphia appears to be radically different. The transient students are changing the nature of the neighbourhoods, and evidently not for the better; they are contributing to the breakdown of the social fabric of the community. You can't alter the fabric of a community to the extent that is apparently happening and expect the community to be stable and cohesive and a nice place to live for both its natural members and the guests in its midst, particularly when those guests do have "prejudiced attitudes".

[gejohnston]

49. what?

I was quoting Mr. Carr. It seemed like Mr. Carr was under the impression that the shooting was racially motivated, or at least that is how it sounded to me. Or he could be a racist that figured as long as it was one of the students that got shot, it is all good. Who knows.

The students developed their own culture, I doubt more than ten are armed. Expat communities do the same thing. Can they blend in the local culture? I would try. How are the students contributing to the breakdown of the local social fabric? If so, how is resisting an armed robbery and defending himself from attempted murder contributing to it?
Sorry, I don't buy the whole bullshit argument. I have lived in neighborhoods like that. The average native lives in fear of the gangs as much as the students would.

Are you saying Eells shot back because of race?

[AtheistCrusader]

35. "pistol-packing outsiders"

If they are carrying lawfully per state law, who cares?

This particular student was afoul of university administrative code, and possibly trespassing as a result. Otherwise appears to be law-abiding. Valid state permit anyway.

[GreenStormCloud]

43. Wasn't he in an off-campus apartment? N/T

[AtheistCrusader]

44. I couldn't tell.

The article may have indicated school-owned housing.

So, either an administrative infraction against the school, or totally legal. Not sure.

[GreenStormCloud]

55. He was off-campus. Link follows:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e2wCZsGlg74&feature=uploademail

The link also confirms that the thug shot first, Eells returned fire. Temple student will not be charged.

[AtheistCrusader]

59. Straight up legal/moral.

Pretty much case closed then.

[PavePusher]

37. Yeah, people should know their places and stay in their own communities....

Holy fuck, I can't believe you can champion such an idea here.

Vile jello, indeed.

[gravity556]

45. Nevermind the money those transient students

pour into the local economy. How much worse would the people who are not students but live and work in the area be doing if a huge source of income vanishes?

[X_Digger]

47. Well, this 'evil' college student was certainly a blight on the local thug culture. :) n/t

[friendly_iconoclast]

48. Unless *they're* the ones moving in, of course.

Where do you silly people get the idea that what's acceptable for certain enlightened and progressive posters is acceptable for
just anyone? That's just crazy talk...

[iverglas]

57. "But neighbors on Eells’ North 12th Street block told a different story"

http://www.metro.us/philadelphia/local/article/960906--tension-rises-after-north-philly-gunfire

“We’ve tried to have conversations with them, but these kids were basically on a racial tension thing,” said one resident who would only identify herself as Brenda, 50. She said she is block captain of the 2300 block of North 12th Street where the shooting took place.

Other neighbors added that the Temple tenants often hung out late on their stoop smoking and drinking.

“What was he doing sitting out here with a gun at two o’clock in the morning?” said Teandra Wilkins, 31, who heard more gunshots Monday morning than she could count.

Wilkins claims she saw police carry at least six guns out of Eells’ house after paramedics carted away his wounded body.

... “My understanding is that once the boy shot <Eells>, he ran off,” said Wilkins. “If he was running away, why shoot him more than once in the back? A license to carry doesn’t give you the right to shoot people when they are no longer a threat.”

... “I’ve called Temple police more than three or four times in the past few weeks about <Eells’> house,” she said. “It’s like they heard me, but didn’t listen.”

Some clarification does indeed seem to be needed. I'm looking at another report saying the would-be mugger was shot in the back -- this one, a direct riposte to the article excerpted above:
http://www.tumblr.com/tagged/rob+eells

What is clear from both accounts is that Eells and his housemates did not get along with the neighbours, for one reason or another.

[AtheistCrusader]

60. 'in the back' is sometimes a moveable feast.

Coroners report is the only really safe source for that. Between the victim's choice to fire, and that impulse reaching the trigger, the assailant may have turned a bit, could be shot in the side, and considered the 'back', etc.

I've certainly seen some claims of a person shot 'in the back' before, that did not jive with the coroner report.

If he was drinking and in possession of a gun, he should be charged with a crime. So far, he hasn't been. Smoking isn't a crime. (well, in most places.)

[gejohnston]

62. my questions are

Police say Eells was shot in the abdomen and the 15-year-old was hit in the chest and leg, but neighbors contend the younger boy was shot from behind as he was running away.

Dorsal chest? what the fuck is that? So why isn't this kid who was hit in the back talking to the cops? If it happened, was it deliberate or a split second hit as the kid turned? All you have is some people say. Why should that given more weight than Eells' or his girlfriend's account?

These neighbors
So why was this lady calling the cops on the students? Since when was "smoking and drinking on your porch" a crime? Conversations about what? He had a problem with Eells having a gun but seemed not to have any problem with the young gangster having one and using for simply being told no.

“The neighborhood is overpopulated with students and it’s starting to affect the community,” block captain Brenda said. “I absolutely feel like the police care more about the safety of Temple students than they do about other residents.”

She plans to organize a protest against the perceived injustice.

“I’ve called Temple police more than three or four times in the past few weeks about house,” she said. “It’s like they heard me, but didn’t listen.”

What injustice? I think she is the one with the problem.
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/clannish

[gravity556]

63. Astounding. She's complaining that Eels was armed, but doesn't seem

to question what a group of teenagers was doing out fucking robbing people with a gun at 2 in the morning. She has no idea that the actions of the idiot shitbag crooks were the ultimate reason they got shot. Had they not tried to fucking rob someone, particularly not someone who was willing to be a victim and had the means with which to protect himself, they wouldn't be shot and wouldn't be facing criminal charges. But oh, no, it's the law abiding citizen's fault for having the stones to stand up to a group of violent bullies that he got shot, and it's all his fault that the fucking crook got shot as well.

As for a gunshot wound in the back, don't you think the cowardly little fuck might have shot as he turned to run away? And even if he was starting to run away, why presume he's not going to fire back over his shoulder as he runs? He already tried to kill you for refusing to be robbed. Unless he threw his gun away when he started to run, he's still a lethal threat. Do you think cops won't shoot a running man who's carrying a gun who has already fired on them? Unless he throws his gun, he's a threat. At least until he's out of pistol range (can't hit you) or is out of sight (can't see you). Throwing yourself on the mercy of a psychopath is a fantastic move if you have no survival instinct.

[iverglas]

65. YOU ARE REPLYING TO POST WRITTEN BY ME

STOP FUCKING REFERRING TO ME AS "SHE".

If you reply to my post, address me.

If you are replying to someone else, refrain from speaking about me in the third person.

A little common courtesy.

[PavePusher]

67. I'm pretty sure he was refering to the woman in the article.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C6cxNR9ML8k

[friendly_iconoclast]

69. It was about the person quoted in the article linked, not you

It's clear from the context of his post he was referring to Wilkins, who was defending that poor misguided victim of gentrification
and rude toters...

[gravity556]

70. Wow! Somebody needs a nap!

The "she" to whom I was referring was the woman in the article. This post is directed at iverglas, lest someone else presume that I am referring to them. Try switching to decaf, iverglas. First you suggest I molest my pets, then you freak the fuck out because you presume that my reference to "she" is directed at you. What is your malfunction?

[friendly_iconoclast]

68. Wilkins is a fuckwit. She blames Eells, but elides a 15 rear old armed robber.

And as we've seen in post #31, there are also reports the robber was shot in the chest.