Concealed Carry strikes again....

[Dr Mordrid]

For him crime most certainly didn't pay....

Link....

Detroit woman turns gun on purse snatcher

Suspect, who fled, may be man who died later at hospital; shooter had permit to carry

Delores Flynn / The Detroit News

Detroit -- A Detroit woman whose purse was snatched early Friday morning while she was pumping gas allegedly took matters into her own hands and shot the suspect with a concealed weapon.

Police have yet to definitively identify whether a man who died at an area hospital Friday was involved in the robbery but say it's a "very strong possibility."

The shooting happened around 5 a.m. at the Mobil gas station at Schoolcraft and Southfield, Detroit Police Sgt. Eren Stephens Bell said.

A woman in her 40s was pumping gas when she was approached by a man who demanded her purse and said if she didn't comply, he'd shoot her.

After the suspect snatched the purse, the woman, who has a valid permit to carry a concealed weapon, shot several rounds at the suspect who fled on foot, Bell said.
>

[TransformX]

It's nice when the good guys shoot first. Now go and explain that to George Lucas.

[Brian Ellis]

For God's sake, murdering someone ("several rounds") for the contents of a purse. One shot in the leg would have sufficed. This was not even self defence, as the victim was already running away. Totally inexcusable. This could be interpreted as premeditated murder, as she was carrying, obviously with the intent of killing an aggressor.

[jms]

For God's sake, murdering someone ("several rounds") for the contents of a purse. One shot in the leg would have sufficed. This was not even self defence, as the victim was already running away. Totally inexcusable. This could be interpreted as premeditated murder, as she was carrying, obviously with the intent of killing an aggressor.

Yeah, but he threatened to shoot her for the very same purse...

Me thinks she did the right thing, that is protected herself.

[Brian Ellis]

Yeah, sure, protecting herself by multiple shots in the man's back, while he was running away. IMHO, this was a cold-blooded revenge killing, in no way self defence or protection of property (that could have been done with a single shot in the leg), tantamount to murder.

Not to mention that shooting in a gas station is not the most intelligent of actions, while "pumping gas".

[Evildead666]

Not to mention that shooting in a gas station is not the most intelligent of actions, while "pumping gas".

quite, brains she is not.
Also, it does not seem clear cut that the dude actually had a gun.
They say the woman's purse was recovered, but were not saying how....particular to say the least.

Anyway, going pumping petrol a 5am is perfectly normal for a single woman...
No one in Northern England would do it, and no-one sane in Paris would either.
"Hey look at me i'm all alone in the very early hours of the morning..."
Common sense is also lacking.

When are you people going to make bullets $5000 apiece so people think twice about blowing away their fellow people...? You have the right to bear arms, but no one said anything about the ammo.

[MultimediaMan]

People have to get to work, and dude, if you knew how many miles some people have to commute here in the U.S. without mass transit, you'd understand just how common it is for anyone to get gas at 5:00AM.

Now, I really don't get how "more dangerous" it is for a gunfight to occur at a gas station: the risk of starting a fire is much smaller than the imminent danger against the person. The rounds in general are non-incident, and non sparking (Copper Jacketed, Lead Core). Smokeless powders are not carbon-based like black powder (all though they do use cellulose, it is the binder, not the primary reactant - many smokeless powders use graphite as a burn rate moderator/anti-clumping/anti-static coating), hence the muzzle flash contains more nitrogen than anything else, and is a poor means of initiating combustion outside the barrel. Blackpowder, on the other hand would be an altogether different animal.

Fact: Handgun rounds in general are poor fight stoppers in general. You shoot and shoot often to obtain the desired results. Deadly force is not meant to be meted out in politically correct doses. If someone threatens your life, you protect your life with all you've got, or you will end up in second place. Second Place truly is the first loser in these types of engagements.

[Brian Ellis]

If someone threatens your life, you protect your life with all you've got, or you will end up in second place. Second Place truly is the first loser in these types of engagements.

This is the whole point. If the guy was running away with her purse, her life was no longer under threat. Emptying a magazine into someone's back is NOT self-defence. In my language, it is murder or, at the very least, manslaughter.

This is one example, amongst many, why I believe that the policy of arms control, as most European countries have, is very sound and why the both the murder rate and the gun-related deaths rate in W. Europe are small, compared to the US, where life is very cheap. Murder rates in western culture countries:
United States: 0.042802 per 1,000 people
Finland: 0.0283362 per 1,000 people
Portugal: 0.0233769 per 1,000 people
France: 0.0173272 per 1,000 people
Iceland: 0.0168499 per 1,000 people
Australia: 0.0150324 per 1,000 people
Canada: 0.0149063 per 1,000 people
United Kingdom: 0.0140633 per 1,000 people
Italy: 0.0128393 per 1,000 people
Spain: 0.0122456 per 1,000 people
Germany: 0.0116461 per 1,000 people
Netherlands: 0.0111538 per 1,000 people
New Zealand: 0.0111524 per 1,000 people
Denmark: 0.0106775 per 1,000 people
Norway: 0.0106684 per 1,000 people
Ireland: 0.00946215 per 1,000 people
Switzerland: 0.00921351 per 1,000 people
Greece: 0.0075928 per 1,000 people

[Evildead666]

People have to get to work, and dude, if you knew how many miles some people have to commute here in the U.S. without mass transit, you'd understand just how common it is for anyone to get gas at 5:00AM.

My colleague from work does over 160Km a day to get to work and back.
He fills up on the way home from work, in the evening.

[MultimediaMan]

Irrelevant: no one can plan for the times they may need gas every single day.

[TransformX]

My colleague from work does over 160Km a day to get to work and back.
He fills up on the way home from work, in the evening.

Excuse me while I call *bullshit*. Evening is just as dangerous as 5am, if not more.
Many people in different kinds of work start their day at 6am, so filling up your tank at 5am is more than reasonable and usually much safer than in the late evening hours.

2nd edit: Your claim is the exact same as saying a girl wearing a miniskirt is asking to be raped.

This is the whole point. If the guy was running away with her purse, her life was no longer under threat. Emptying a magazine into someone's back is NOT self-defence. In my language, it is murder or, at the very least, manslaughter.

And now for another call of *BULLSHIT* if I may. Person threatens my or mine with an arm, grabs something and runs.
I have 3 options:
1. Do nothing. Excuse me, not my preferred option.
2. Chase the said person and calling the bluff, only to get shot/stabbed/whatever when I do catch up with them. It happened before to many people.
3. Use whatever I have to take that person down either by disabling them or marking them with a bloody wound.

You don't like option 3? Then don't F**K with me to begin with!

Another thing: That person was running away with her purse.
A purse would usually hold what exactly? Credit card(s), cash.. No biggie, but wait, that's not all. It also holds your ID (driver's license or other) and there's more than a reasonable chance it also holds your keys. So now that person knows who you are, where you live and maybe also work and they have your keys. I call that a very reasonable threat, even if not immediate.

Shoot the bastard.

[Kruzin]

3. Use whatever I have to take that person down either by disabling them or marking them with a bloody wound.

You don't like option 3? Then don't F**K with me to begin with!

AMEN!
This person felt threatened, and she defended herself.
The crook got what was coming to him. He's NOT the victim in this story.

[Dr Mordrid]

Update:

there were 2 robbers who threatened her, she drew and fired then they ran away only to have one die later. No shooting in the back. This was a good shoot.

Brian: many states have 'stand your ground' statutes which extend 'castle doctrine' rights to the public square. The legal presumption is with the victim, not the perpetrator, and now the state recognizes that the police can't be everywhere. Because of this it's accepted that the citizen has the right to protect themselves and not just roll over and let the perpetrator do as they will. Secondary to that right is the acceptance that a citizen needs the means to do so.

This was further strengthened in District of Columbia v. Heller, the 2008 US Supreme Court decision that affirmed the right of citizens to own firearms for their own purposes, including self defense. To meet the requirements of Heller even the Obama administration has taken pro gun actions. two being the right to carry firearms in national parks and to carry firearms in luggage aboard AMTRAK trains. More to follow.

This is also not a partisan issue - legislatures and governors of both parties support these laws.

As for us: when we're out I carry a .40 Sig P239 and my wife carries a 9mm Beretta 9000, both loaded with hydro-shock bullets.

[TransformX]

Yeah, sure, protecting herself by multiple shots in the man's back, while he was running away. IMHO, this was a cold-blooded revenge killing, in no way self defence or protection of property (that could have been done with a single shot in the leg), tantamount to murder.

Who said she shot him in the back?
Assume she fired a warning shot at 60 degrees, another shot or two to his legs, he didn't stop so she assumed he either doesn't care or she missed, so she aimed higher. JUST LIKE A POLICEMAN WOULD DO.

Not to mention that shooting in a gas station is not the most intelligent of actions, while "pumping gas".

Nor is smoking, wearing stockings, using a cell phone, yada yada yada, your point?

[Brian Ellis]

AMEN!
This person felt threatened, and she defended herself.
The crook got what was coming to him. He's NOT the victim in this story.

You don't get it, do you? How can you feel threatened by someone who is running hell for leather away from you? How do explain a plurality of entry wounds in the back of somebody who is supposed to be threatening the shooter? That is NOT self-defence. I suggest it is more likely to be a panic reaction; panic and firearms are not good soul mates but panic is not a very good defence for a homicide charge.