Sheriff tells citizens to “Get a firearm” to make community safer

posted at 12:45 pm on November 1, 2011 by Ed Morrissey

How can citizens protect themselves from violent offenders? According to one sheriff in Spartanburg, South Carolina, the answer is simple: Arm yourselves. Sheriff Chuck Wright vented his frustration after a suspect with a long record of violent crimes allegedly attacked a woman walking her dog near a park, forced her to disrobe and attempted to rape her. Police tracked down Walter Lance and witnesses picked him out of a lineup, but Wright wistfully lamented that citizens with carry permits weren’t on hand to stop Lance — one way or another:

Sheriff Chuck Wright opened his news conference by saying, “Our form of justice is not making it.”

He said, “Carry a concealed weapon. That’ll fix it.” …

Wright said, “It’s too bad someone with a concealed weapons permit didn’t walk by. That would fix it.” He said people are tired of doing the right thing and criminals getting away with their actions.

He said several times, “I want you to get a concealed weapons permit.”

At one point, Wright held up a fanny pack and said, “They make this right here where you can conceal a small pistol in them. They got one called The Judge that shoots a .45 or a .410 shell. You ain’t got to be accurate; you just have to get close.”

Wright said, “I’m tired of looking at victims saying, ‘There’s life after this’ … I’m tired of saying, ‘We’re sorry, we can’t keep them in jail.'”

Undoubtedly, those who champion gun-control laws as a way to lower crime rates (including no shortage of law-enforcement chiefs) will explode in outrage.  Arming citizens in the name of public safety will encourage vigilante justice, they’ll claim, and result in an explosion of both crime and accidental shootings that will eclipse the problems we currently see.  In my column for The Week, I puncture those claims as myths based on the actual results of liberalizing permit issuance laws in Minnesota, and point out what the true danger to the community is:

In 2003, at the time of the current law’s passage, opponents predicted dire consequences, including a rapid increase in murders, duels in the street, and more fights that ended in shootings than in fisticuffs. Critics warned about vigilantes roaming the streets to deal rough justice to anyone who looked out of place.

None of this materialized. Crime rates did not rise; in fact, they fell over an eight-year period, as the index of violent crime in 2002 went from 267.2 per 100,000 people to 236.0 in 2010. Murders dropped from 2.5 to 1.8, forcible rapes from 45.2 to 33.9, robberies from 78.4 to 63.9, and aggravated assaults from 141.4 to 136.4. Carry permits may or may not have impacted these declines, but they certainly did not push the crime rate upward. …

This gets to the heart of the right to self-defense and the wisdom of the Second Amendment. The role of law enforcement is to keep the peace where possible, and to investigate crimes when they occur. The police could not possibly keep all citizens safe at all times. Law-abiding citizens need to prepare for self-defense, not because the police can’t enforce the law in general, but because the police can’t prevent crime from occurring in every situation and keep each individual safe in every situation. …

As we have seen in Minnesota, a properly prepared citizen presents no special danger to his community, and an argument can be made that each law-abiding permit holder enhances security. The same cannot be said for the properly prepared violent offender in the midst of a disarmed populace. When a sheriff tells citizens that the solution to violent crime is self-defense, perhaps people should pay attention. Perhaps the media should take note as well.

My column also includes the Evanovich case, which I used to demonstrate the media bias against carry permits in a post on Saturday after the Hennepin County Attorney cleared the Good Samaritan who attempted to retrieve the purse stolen by yet another repeat violent offender, only to have a gun pulled on him.  Not only did the CA clear the shooting as justifiable self-defense, he also commended the unnamed man for coming to the aid of his fellow citizen.  However, I wasn’t surprised to see this as the first comment at The Week on my piece:

Edward, in your opening story about the robber that was stalked by the Samaritan why do you overlook the fact that if the Samaritan hadn’t been packing, the robber wouldn’t have died? And over a purse and a beating? And the fact that this is a ‘Cinderella Story’ of concealed firearms? You’re consistently disingenuous and shortsighted, blogman.

So the armed robber got “stalked” by the Good Samaritan?  Really?  And no, I don’t overlook the fact that Evanovich would still be alive if the Good Samaritan hadn’t been “packing,” but still alive to continue his violent crime spree, which consisted of beating isolated and unarmed middle-aged women for their purses; it was the third such crime in nine days by Evanovich.  It was Evanovich that brought the pistol to the crime (he used it to to beat the woman), and it was Evanovich who drew the gun to keep his stolen property.  Unless the commenter wants to take the position that a robber should own his booty unchallenged by polite society, Evanovich’s own choices determined his fate.

As I wrote, shooting a gun at another human being is the second-worst outcome for self-defense, but it beats the absolute worst outcome.

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

When seconds count, the police can be there within minutes.

Abby Adams on November 1, 2011 at 12:48 PM

When seconds count the police are only minutes away! (First Poster?)

RedLizard64 on November 1, 2011 at 12:48 PM

Good for you sherrif!!

JohnGalt23 on November 1, 2011 at 12:48 PM

Two are better.

NotCoach on November 1, 2011 at 12:49 PM

Look out sheriff Wright, holder will be at your door any minute to put a stop to this type of talk! I think we all should have ‘means’ with us at all time.
L

letget on November 1, 2011 at 12:50 PM

Abby Adams on November 1, 2011 at 12:48 PM

OMG and HAHAHAHA..by the way I am kind of tracking HA posters support for the candidates..i have you as supporting Huntsman is that correct. Right now I am supporting either a Gingrich/Cain or Cain/Gingrich ticket…because they are the most complimentary.

RedLizard64 on November 1, 2011 at 12:50 PM

This sheriff is right on. As economist John Lott explains in his books on gun stats, armed citizens result in lower victimization crimes.

jediwebdude on November 1, 2011 at 12:51 PM

100% correct, hits the nail on the head…

PatriotRider on November 1, 2011 at 12:52 PM

I hear that the BATF has lots of guns to sell…

Ward Cleaver on November 1, 2011 at 12:52 PM

Not unprecedented.

Kennesaw, GA made gun ownership mandatory back in the 1982.

Here is what happened next…

“The city’s population grew from around 5,000 in 1980 to 13,000 by 1996 (latest available estimate). Yet there have been only three murders: two with knives (1984 and 1987) and one with a firearm (1997). After the law went into effect in 1982, crime against persons plummeted 74 percent compared to 1981, and fell another 45 percent in 1983 compared to 1982.”

angryed on November 1, 2011 at 12:52 PM

Better to be judged by 12 than carried by 6…

PatriotRider on November 1, 2011 at 12:54 PM

Good article, Ed, and that scum Evanovich deserved to die.

TXUS on November 1, 2011 at 12:55 PM

Texas.

Rebar on November 1, 2011 at 12:55 PM

We need a big GET A FIREARM banner in Zuccotti Park.

Blake on November 1, 2011 at 12:55 PM

He’s a white sheriff and South Carolina is about 28% African-
American. Cries of racism by liberal media in five… four… three…

radjah shelduck on November 1, 2011 at 12:57 PM

Things we think but do not say…

This Sherriff has basically put a hit out on this guy. Terribly unprofessional. There’s alot to be said for concealed carry. But the tone and nature of these comments are over-the-top.

SAMinVA on November 1, 2011 at 1:02 PM

As I wrote, shooting a gun at another human being is the second-worst outcome for self-defense, but it beats the absolute worst outcome.

Poor shot grouping?

NotCoach on November 1, 2011 at 1:02 PM

why do you overlook the fact that if the Samaritan hadn’t been packing, the robber wouldn’t have died? And over a purse and a beating? And the fact that this is a ‘Cinderella Story’ of concealed firearms?

Actually, if the robber hadn’t been packing and threatening he wouldn’t have died.
BTW, did Evanovich have a carry permit?

a capella on November 1, 2011 at 1:03 PM

Things we think but do not say…

This Sherriff has basically put a hit out on this guy. Terribly unprofessional. There’s alot to be said for concealed carry. But the tone and nature of these comments are over-the-top.

SAMinVA on November 1, 2011 at 1:02 PM

First, this guy is in custody. Second, you are an ill-informed moron. Name a city or state that went vigilante crazy after gun laws were liberalized.

NotCoach on November 1, 2011 at 1:04 PM

Better to have a gun and not need it…

… than need a gun and not have it.

Seven Percent Solution on November 1, 2011 at 1:09 PM

“you don’t need to be accurate, you just need to be close”

make this guy president.

bloghooligan on November 1, 2011 at 1:09 PM

I have a Judge in my bedside table.

My husband has said he’d rather spend money on psychotherapy for me in the event I ever shoot someone in my home after a break-in than pay for my funeral.

tru2tx on November 1, 2011 at 1:09 PM

Abby Adams on November 1, 2011 at 12:48 PM

OMG and HAHAHAHA..by the way I am kind of tracking HA posters support for the candidates..i have you as supporting Huntsman is that correct. RedLizard64 on November 1, 2011 at 12:50 PM

Bwahahaha. Abby Adams is a Huntsman supporter? Speak up, Abby. Stand proud! :)

a capella on November 1, 2011 at 1:10 PM

A chicken in every pot! A cap in every ass!

lorien1973 on November 1, 2011 at 1:10 PM

As I wrote, shooting a gun at another human being is the second-worst outcome for self-defense, but it beats the absolute worst outcome.

It is the WORST outcome for a criminal.

Detering crime is the BEST outcome of self-defense.

ajacksonian on November 1, 2011 at 1:11 PM

A chicken in every pot! A cap in every ass!

lorien1973 on November 1, 2011 at 1:10 PM

I misjudged you, lorien. I thought your motto was “an ass in every lap”.

SKYFOX on November 1, 2011 at 1:14 PM

The politically correct world we live in encourages women to live in fear. Be the victim.

I tend to share Regis Giles’ view that more stories about how would be victims gunned down a would be rapist/thief instead of the alternative would be great to hear/read.

MeatHeadinCA on November 1, 2011 at 1:17 PM

Over the years, I’ve come to know a number of police officers, Texas DPS officers, sheriffs and deputy sheriffs, and not one of them would disagree with Sheriff Wright. Indeed, they insist that their families and friends take the training and obtain their concealed carry licenses, for the very reasons Wright and Ed’s article point out.

The ones working homicide and robbery are even more adamant about it as they see on a daily basis the victims who could have avoided that unfortunate status had they been armed.

TXUS on November 1, 2011 at 1:17 PM

The Police are there to AVENGE you, not save you.

Wood Dragon on November 1, 2011 at 1:17 PM

The DOJ and Eric Holder obviously should shut down this “rogue vigilante” sheriff.

“Alex, I’ll take ‘Suing Law-Abiding Americans’ for $500.

PappyD61 on November 1, 2011 at 1:20 PM

The Police are there to AVENGE you, not save you.

Wood Dragon on November 1, 2011 at 1:17 PM

I’d argue that’s what laws are for, too; but gun control activists have convinced themselves that legislation will make the world safer.

MeatHeadinCA on November 1, 2011 at 1:22 PM

Did you all happen to see that the BUSH 43 legacy (Homeland Security) publicly announced they will be monitoring Twitter now for threats?

It’s great that external threats will be monitored so closely.

OBAMA 2012……..Because we deserve it.

PappyD61 on November 1, 2011 at 1:23 PM

When seconds count, the police can be there within minutes.

Fun story: The one time I’ve ever needed to call the cops, I came home in the middle of the day to find a burglar (and his 5-year-old son; wrap your head around that one) ransacking my house. But as luck would have it, two patrol cars were running a speed trap one block away, so they were there in literally 30 seconds. It took me longer to give my address to the dispatcher than it took the cops to show up. I almost felt sorry for the poor dumb [email protected]: This was California, so he had every right to expect to go about his “business” unperturbed.

Mind you, I drew the correct lesson from the incident, which was to move back to Texas where I could own a gun. In those 30 seconds, the perp still had time to pull a knife, drive over my wife’s foot and slam his car into mine. But no one was harmed, and the look on the perp’s face when the cruisers rolled up out of nowhere made the whole day worthwhile.

Fabozz on November 1, 2011 at 1:23 PM

My prayer:

Dear Lord, thank you for giving me the tools and the ability to protect and defend my family and myself. I pray that I never have to use my weapon, but please guide my hand if I do. Amen.

Texican Ben on November 1, 2011 at 1:25 PM

Yall didn’t read the articles (I read somewhere else earlier).

This perp, Mr. Lance, is a real work of art. The Sheriff says he gets out of jail faster they he(the sheriff) does.! This guy, the perp has a rap sheet 20 years long, and they can’t keep him in jail.

$50 says he ‘disappears’ next week and is never seen again.
Nor will he be missed.

orbitalair on November 1, 2011 at 1:26 PM

While it sounds like a good idea. How can he tell the citizens to arm themselves and yet are they going to be prosecuted by the state if they end up protecting themselves or others?
its a double edge sword.

ColdWarrior57 on November 1, 2011 at 1:32 PM

Texican Ben on November 1, 2011 at 1:25 PM

That is a lovely prayer.

Cindy Munford on November 1, 2011 at 1:34 PM

People need to consider the possibility that they have a duty to protect themselves, their families, and their communities. That duty may include learning to use a firearm and carrying one. If you have dependents, it is a no-brainer, as I see it. If you have the strength to hold up a revolver and the stones to fight for your own life, a revolver in the house makes you much safer than you are unarmed.

I have carried regularly for many years. Haven’t shot anyone yet, but I did protect myself on a couple of occasions simply by reference to being armed when threatened, and once apprehended and detained a criminal gang member until police could be summoned. (About five minutes for them to arrive, by the way, and that was in response to a “shots fired” 911 call from a neighbor.)

I now live on much safer turf, but I have no illusions. As the town grows, so does crime, and we have had several home invasions targeting the elderly in the last 6 months, and a couple of drug-related shootings. It can happen to you. Better safe than sorry.

novaculus on November 1, 2011 at 1:35 PM

Good sheriff but make sure that your weapon is one that you can use.

Slowburn on November 1, 2011 at 1:35 PM

This policy works in my region.

The areas of my community with the most home-owner firearms (considering they actually know how to use them) have the least volume of crime. The majority of crimes (including so-called gun crimes) happen in the “dis-armed” areas.

Lawrence on November 1, 2011 at 1:39 PM

I regard a handgun as an accessory item that I “put on” and carry everyday.

Criminals need to know that their risk of injury or death from the perpetration of their crimes is substantial and omnipresent.

molonlabe28 on November 1, 2011 at 1:41 PM

OMG and HAHAHAHA..by the way I am kind of tracking HA posters support for the candidates..i have you as supporting Huntsman is that correct. Right now I am supporting either a Gingrich/Cain or Cain/Gingrich ticket…because they are the most complimentary.

RedLizard64 on November 1, 2011 at 12:50 PM

Sorry for the late response. I am a very very tepid supporter of… I dunno… maybe Romney. I don’t have a lot of fire-in-the-belly for any candidate though.

I do like Huntsman (probably more than 99% of people here… HA! I’m the 1%), and think he’s gotten a terrible rap. I could *gasp* see myself voting for him in the primary (because my vote likely won’t matter much).

Really, I’m just a supporter of whoever wins the nomination (which is why I kind of support Romney). Hope this helps!

Abby Adams on November 1, 2011 at 1:43 PM

Well SAID Sheriff – KUDOS to you SUH!!!!!!!!!!

Katfish on November 1, 2011 at 1:44 PM

At 8:45, he says you can’t blame a land owner for an “animal” trespassing on his property, then right after talks about “the gay thing”…whether it be “gay” or just “people makin’ out.” I know he wasn’t inviting people to go after gays (or “people” for that matter), but, hopefully, no one will take this call to arms as an excuse to shoot gays and claim self defense. The phrasing just seems odd, differentiating between gays and “people.”

Christien on November 1, 2011 at 1:55 PM

Well, he’s right. The story here is that the libs are winning because criminals are free and I bet they are registered to vote as well. If not, they are just using the voter registration of someone who died.

jeffn21 on November 1, 2011 at 2:04 PM

We’re all Paul Kersy now.

portlandon on November 1, 2011 at 2:04 PM

You know with the precedent from ObamaCare, we should pass a bill that makes everyone buy a gun or pay a fine.

jeffn21 on November 1, 2011 at 2:07 PM

An armed society is a polite society. Robert Heinlein. I live in NYC, so a concealed carry permit isn’t an option (I do have a home permit, and I own 2 handguns). I use expedient methods to defend: a Surefire E2 LED with a scalloped and hardened head, pepper spray, a rescue tool (spiked on one end, sharp blade on the other), and a folder in my suit jacket pocket. That will have to do.

RPL on November 1, 2011 at 2:07 PM

While it sounds like a good idea. How can he tell the citizens to arm themselves and yet are they going to be prosecuted by the state if they end up protecting themselves or others?
its a double edge sword.

ColdWarrior57 on November 1, 2011 at 1:32 PM

No, in SC its a ‘shall issue’ concealed permit, and a ‘Castle Law’ state. They have a right to use deadly force to protect and maintain their persons AND property. No more of this, trapped in a bathroom with no window to escape crap. You see someone on your property, ask them to leave. They give you any lip service or bitchin, shoot them. As it should be.

orbitalair on November 1, 2011 at 2:08 PM

Awesome!

tx2654 on November 1, 2011 at 2:08 PM

It is the WORST outcome for a criminal.

Detering crime is the BEST outcome of self-defense.

ajacksonian on November 1, 2011 at 1:11 PM

Sadly, detering crime is not a priority in the USA. Our country has a failed justice system in many respects:

– overcrowded prisons results in the release of people who do not belong back in society where they will murder, rape, etc…
– liberal judges who think the perpetrator is a product of society and does not deserve to be imprisoned, so a light sentence is issued
– inability to discern between psychotic/career criminals and those who can truly be rehabilitated
– less significant crimes often receive more severe sentencing than violent victimization crimes

jediwebdude on November 1, 2011 at 2:11 PM

In my 30 years as a cop, I can tell you that most “law-enforcement chiefs” are not ‘cops’. They’re politicians. I always thought it a disservice to people in giving the mantra of the time; to be cooperative. This no doubt emboldened an entire generation of thugs and the statistics showed it. Only later – in the 90’s – did women’s advocacy groups start saying to women FIGHT BACK!

As for concealed carry, there’s a lot more to it than going to a gun shop and picking out the largest piece of artillery you can find. You’d better first have a long talk with yourself and answer the question ‘are you prepared to take the life of another person?’. If you have to equivocate, forget it. Some crook will take that gun from you and wrap it around your head.

Next you should take a course in the ethical use of firearms, followed by a legal course in what you can expect if you do shoot someone. Guaranteed, you shoot someone, you WILL be sued by the miscreant’s relatives. All of whom will testify that he wouldn’t hurt a fly, donated his time to charity, which is why he held no job. And was on his way to donate blood after choir practice.

If you decide to purchase a weapon, also purchase a was to SECURE IT. Then you’d better find the time to practice at least once an month so that you can hit what you aim at.

If you’re not willing to do that, then just buy a baseball bat.

GarandFan on November 1, 2011 at 2:12 PM

As I wrote, shooting a gun at another human being is the second-worst outcome for self-defense, but it beats the absolute worst outcome.

It is the WORST outcome for a criminal.
Detering crime is the BEST outcome of self-defense.
ajacksonian on November 1, 2011 at 1:11 PM

Not sure what ideological/philosophical direction you were trying to take that.

That statement could be either FOR or AGAINST common citizens ‘carrying.’

listens2glenn on November 1, 2011 at 2:13 PM

On a related note: Wisconsin residents, as of today, can take the Sheriff’s advice.

MadisonConservative on November 1, 2011 at 2:07 PM

I have family in WI who have been doing just that.

listens2glenn on November 1, 2011 at 2:16 PM

Texican Ben on November 1, 2011 at 1:25 PM

That is a lovely prayer.
Cindy Munford on November 1, 2011 at 1:34 PM

I second that.
Reminds me of Mel Gibson in The Patriot.

listens2glenn on November 1, 2011 at 2:21 PM

Hey angryed

Here’s an update:

http://www.city-data.com/city/Kennesaw-Georgia.html

Population is now 33,000 and the per capita income is higher than the state average.

To update Heinlein:

“An armed society is a polite and rich society”.

patch on November 1, 2011 at 2:26 PM

So the armed robber got “stalked” by the Good Samaritan? Really?

Sure, if you look at it from the robber’s point of view…. and after he was stalked somebody shot him and stole his purse!

FloatingRock on November 1, 2011 at 2:42 PM

I love this son of a btich!
He gets it.
Win seconds count the police are just minutes away.

esnap on November 1, 2011 at 2:51 PM

If you decide to purchase a weapon, also purchase a wasy to SECURE IT. Then you’d better find the time to practice at least once an month so that you can hit what you aim at.
If you’re not willing to do that, then just buy a baseball bat.
GarandFan on November 1, 2011 at 2:12 PM

Dittos to that entire post.
(except the spelling of ‘way.’) : )

listens2glenn on November 1, 2011 at 3:00 PM

The DOJ and Eric Holder obviously should shut down this “rogue vigilante” sheriff.
PappyD61 on November 1, 2011 at 1:20 PM

First read this on DRUDGE (yesterday?), and my second thought was; “How long before DC politicians start coming down on this sheriff in/on EVERY form media that’s known to man?”

(I don’t need to tell you what my first thought was)

listens2glenn on November 1, 2011 at 3:09 PM

I belong to a Bible believing conservative church and when I suggested to the woman’s ministry that each woman who goes out to shop, buy a .25 caliber Beretta and take shooting lessons and carry the weapon in their purse: I was received like I had two headed freak.

I tried to explain in my talk that they did not have to shoot anyone just pull the trigger (with the gun still in the purse even) and 99 out of 100 preps would exit the scene.

The Pastors wife, to this day, is cordial but avoids eye contact. My fifty years of experience with crime and criminals means nothing to the generations of women who have been brought up on ‘love’ and taught that everyone is a good person at heart.

I have a small business which sells security devices, from motion detectors to pepper spray: those ladies (average age 37yrs) will not even carry a pepper spray that I offer them at cost ($4.00). Go figure.

jarhead0311 on November 1, 2011 at 3:12 PM

Here’s a winning ticket – Arpaio-Wright!

DuctTapeMyBrain on November 1, 2011 at 3:12 PM

If the Good Samaritan wasn’t carrying then the outcome would have been that Evanovich would have lived and the Samaritan would have been shot and possibly killed. But I guess in the commenter’s utopian world view that is the price we have to pay to keep guns out of the hands of people. Idiot.

smfoushee on November 1, 2011 at 3:12 PM

I walk with my 2 big dogs that would tear up anyone that got near me. I also walk with my gun in my fanny pack, just in case the dogs don’t get them. And I would sleep like a baby if I ever had to use it.

My husband says it’s because I’m a redhead.

megthered on November 1, 2011 at 3:26 PM

OMG and HAHAHAHA..by the way I am kind of tracking HA posters support for the candidates..i have you as supporting Huntsman is that correct. Right now I am supporting either a Gingrich/Cain or Cain/Gingrich ticket…because they are the most complimentary.

RedLizard64 on November 1, 2011 at 12:50 PM

That’s more than a little creapy! A Hot Air stalker in our midst?

As for the topic itself, if it’s up to Obozo he’ll ban firearms completely. As soon as he finds a way to strip the rights away from individual states, he will have his way. I may now put South Carolina on my short list of states to live in. I’m tired of the California pussies and the lame governor they elected. Illegal Mexicans now have more weapons than the rest of us, so we just have to be able to take a bullet…

stacman on November 1, 2011 at 3:32 PM

Hear the one about the non-violent Quaker who confronted a burglar in his home: He said:

“Pardon me friend, but thou standeth where I am about to shoot.”

BigAlSouth on November 1, 2011 at 4:03 PM

Not sure what ideological/philosophical direction you were trying to take that.

That statement could be either FOR or AGAINST common citizens ‘carrying.’

listens2glenn on November 1, 2011 at 2:13 PM

Unarmed people who are attacked are called: victims.

Armed people who are attacked are called: citizens.

A Nation of citizens deters crime. A Nation of victims invites crime.

ajacksonian on November 1, 2011 at 4:09 PM

stacman on November 1, 2011 at 3:32 PM

I only “organize” the names to 1. Help me understand where a person is ocming from (gets confusing on the posts sometimes, 2. keep someone from being able to call me a liar that “no the guy I don’t supoort doesn’t have that many supporters here…whaa, whaa,whaa. 3. to allow anyone who wants to to update me to where they actually stand (if I have them “encamped” incorrectly or they change who they are supporting). As a sideline I am trying to follow statistical variations of HA related to say Townhall posters/Patriot Post posters and national polls to see how close HA readers represent other groups or conservative/libertarian/Republican voters nationally.

RedLizard64 on November 1, 2011 at 4:24 PM

NewsBusters: MSNBC’s Melvin Worries Rape Victims Might ‘Presume’ Guilt If They Shoot Would-be Rapists
http://newsbusters.org/blogs/ken-shepherd/2011/11/01/msnbcs-melvin-worries-rape-victims-might-presume-guilt-if-they-shoot-w

StewartIII on November 1, 2011 at 4:42 PM

ajacksonian on November 1, 2011 at 4:09 PM

Excellent! : )

Thanks for the come-back.

listens2glenn on November 1, 2011 at 5:03 PM

StewartIII on November 1, 2011 at 4:42 PM

CRAIG MELVIN, NewsNation guest host: If women are shooting potential attackers, aren’t they presuming guilt before innocence?

Sheriff CHUCK WRIGHT, Spartanburg, S.C.: Well, it’s easy to fix that. Just don’t attack a woman….

Thankyou, Sheriff. : )

listens2glenn on November 1, 2011 at 5:10 PM

CRAIG MELVIN, NewsNation guest host: If women are shooting potential attackers, aren’t they presuming guilt before innocence?

Guilty vs innocent is up to a jury to decide.

A potential victim has far less time to ponder that decision, before becoming an actual victim.

listens2glenn on November 1, 2011 at 5:19 PM

And over a purse and a beating? And the fact that this is a ‘Cinderella Story’ of concealed firearms? You’re consistently disingenuous and shortsighted, blogman.

This happened because the thief threatened the Samaritan with a gun. Pure and simple. The real gun nuts(the controllers) are out of their minds.

CW on November 1, 2011 at 7:05 PM

CRAIG MELVIN, NewsNation guest host: If women are shooting potential attackers, aren’t they presuming guilt before innocence?

Numb nuts

CW on November 1, 2011 at 7:07 PM

My man!

J.E. Dyer on November 2, 2011 at 12:19 AM