Good Gal: 1, Bad Guy: 0

Discussion in 'Politics, Religion, Social Issues' started by Frohickey, Apr 29, 2004.

  1. Frohickey macrumors 6502a

    Joined:
    Feb 27, 2003
    Location:
    PRK
    #1
    Intruder's killer: 'I had no choice'
    Detroit woman tells of self-defense shooting

    Their eyes locked.

    Then Barbara Holland saw the barrel of the gun.

    She lay on the floorin her house after an intruder had knocked her down while pushing through her side door. While on her back, she drew a 9mm handgun from a holster on her waist.

    Her assailant's glare suddenly changed.

    "He looked surprised," Holland said.

    Then she pulled the trigger.

    Holland, a 38-year-old Detroit business owner and mother, remembers firing three shots. Detroit police told her she fired six.

    Either way, she killed the 42-year-old man, Clabe Hunt -- who had shoved intoher home on Troester, near Hayes, on Detroit's east side at 8:10 p.m. April 13.

    He was an ex-con with five children and was armed with a loaded, nickel-plated semiautomatic handgun that was not registered to him. Autopsy reports indicate he was shot in the head multiple times. He never fired his weapon.

    Police officers said Holland's gun was licensed, and they determined the shooting to be self-defense. Wayne County prosecutors continue to investigate, which is routine in most fatal shootings.

    Citizens defending themselves are precisely what backers of Michigan's controversial concealed-weapons law had in mind when they worked to pass the legislation in 2001. The law makes it easier for anyone without felony convictions or mental illnesses to obtain a permit to carry concealed weapons.

    "The more the criminal element knows that Michigan residents can protect themselves and will protect themselves, the more crime goes down," said state Sen. Alan Cropsey, R-Dewitt.

    Some opponents of the law predicted a large increase in self-defense-type shootings. Gov. Jennifer Granholm, who opposed the measure when she was state attorney general, has acknowledged that has not occurred.

    Even a justified shooting takes its toll, though, as Holland has discovered.

    She is slowly coming to terms with the fact that she took a life. Sometimes she has tinges of remorse. Mostly she feels as though she had to protect herself and her 15-year-old daughter, who was home that night, hiding in the living room after the shots.

    Hunt's family members are also hurting. They want more answers from police.

    "Was someone else with him? Where is his car?" said Hunt's 40-year-old sister, who requested anonymity because she is the owner of a business.

    "I'm not necessarily mad at her, but I don't know enough. Why unload the gun on him?"

    'Like Friday the 13th'



    Holland still remembers the words of the man whom she says she never met before he charged her.

    Using a vulgarity, Hunt said: "I got you, I got you," Holland recalled. "I kept wondering if he was talking to me, but he came running right up at me," she said. "It didn't seem real."

    The shooting was the first in an unusual night of violence, even in Detroit, which is experiencing a rise in homicides this year. In four hours, nine people were shot. Four, including Hunt, were killed.

    "It was like Friday the 13th," Holland said. "Only it was Tuesday the 13th."

    When police homicide officers arrived at Holland's home, Hunt's feet were inside her side entrance. The rest of his body lay in the driveway, investigators said. Hunt still had a gun in his right hand.

    Holland's daughter, Tabitha, heard her mother scream, "Oh, Lord," as the shots rang out. She eventually ran outside, thinking the worst. Instead, she found her mother alive.

    "I had normal feelings about taking a life, if you can call that normal," Barbara Holland said. "But I'm not losing sleep over it any more. I really had no choice."

    'I had a strange feeling'



    Holland owns a small used-car lot on Hayes and Troester with rent-to-own deals. She employs three workers and has about 20 cars and a couple of motorcycles for sale.

    What sticks with Holland is something she is calling divine intervention.

    Before she closed April 13, Holland said, two suspicious men came into the office asking about cars and then a Kawasaki motorcycle. One man said he had $1,000 in cash.

    Holland said she told him to go outside and pick out a car.

    "But he never left," she said. "He just stared at me."

    Then the man asked about the motorcycle inside the office. Holland told him it cost $2,500. He asked about a payment plan but let the matter drop. "Then, they both just left," she said. "I had a strange feeling and I said a prayer."

    She then checked to make sure the gun, which she has owned since 1992, was loaded.

    Holland got into her 1998 Ford Escort station wagon and drove home. She pulled into her drivewayand walked toward her side door. A video cassette fell out of her laptop computer case.

    As she bent down to pick it up, she saw Hunt running toward her, pointing the gun.

    She screamed for help and tried slamming the door. Hunt blocked the door with his foot, pushing it open. Holland fell back onto a landing leading up to her kitchen.

    Then she fired.

    When Hunt's funeral took place a week later at Swanson Funeral Home on West Grand Boulevard in Detroit, Holland closed her shop.

    "I did it out of respect for his family," she said. "I don't know them, but I thought it was the right thing to do."

    Hunt's wife, Cynthia, did not attend the funeral. She could not be reached.

    "It's been hard on everybody," Hunt's sister said. "We had just seen him two days earlier, on Easter. He called me on the day of his death and asked me to watch his kids. I'm not saying my brother was a great guy, but he didn't bring his problems near us."

    Hunt's five children range in age from 27 to 2, his sister said.

    He lived near 8 Mile and I-75 and was not working. Before going to prison in 1985 for armed robbery, he had attended the now-closed Northeastern High School in Detroit but never graduated.

    He was released on parole in 1996, went back in a year later for violating parole and spent 1999 through 2002 in a halfway house, according to state Department of Corrections records.

    Hunt's sister is still baffled that police have not been able to find her brother's red 1990 Ford Tempo. The missing car makes her think someone else was involved in the robbery attempt.

    Police said they are still looking for the car but have no evidence of other suspects.

    Meanwhile, Holland said she's considering selling her business and moving west.

    "I think I'm ready to move on now," she said. "California."

    =====

    If this woman was in California, and the same thing happened, she would be dead. :eek: :eek: :eek:
     
  2. Dippo macrumors 65816

    Dippo

    Joined:
    Sep 27, 2003
    Location:
    Charlotte, NC
    #2
    Oh yea, blame the person getting robbed. :rolleyes:
     
  3. markjones05 macrumors 6502a

    markjones05

    Joined:
    Jan 15, 2003
    Location:
    Brooklyn, NY
    #3

    Why not unload the gun on him?not
     
  4. Neserk macrumors 6502a

    Neserk

    Joined:
    Jan 1, 2004
    #4
    Now, to balance tell the hundreds of stories where the kid shoots his sibling/neighbor and killls them in an accident... There are a lot more of those.
     
  5. Frohickey thread starter macrumors 6502a

    Joined:
    Feb 27, 2003
    Location:
    PRK
    #5
    Firearm accident deaths are at an all-time low, among the entire U.S. population and among children. In 2000, there were 776 firearm accident deaths, including 86 among children.

    Hundreds, eh? More likely, tens, as in 86 from Jan 2000 to Dec 2000.

    Neserk, you need to ask yourself why these 'child-deaths via gun accidents' include suicides and people aged from 24 and under. Sounds like padding the numbers in order to make it sound like an epidemic, in order to propagate the myth.

    The best way to prevent gun accidents is to educate and train children. We teach teenagers drivers education, why not teach children gun education? By adding to the mysticism of a firearm in NOT teaching gun education and gun safety, you are practically inviting children to satiate their curiosity when proper adult supervision is NOT present. Better to educate and inform children of proper gun safety and use while they are young in order to teach them right and wrong. We already teach children what is right and what is wrong starting at an early age, makes it easier for the proper behavior to come to the fore, why not do the same with guns?

    Neserk, here is a standing offer to you, if you happen to be in the San Francisco Bay area. I offer to teach you, and your students proper gun handling, gun safety and marksmanship, FREE OF CHARGE, given ample notice. I know people that offer to sell this type of service for cash money, and they make a good living doing so. I offer it to you for free. What do I get out of it? People that are safer if they happen to get ahold of a gun; if I or anyone I know, GOD FORBID, get shot at, I want it be to intentional and not by accident. :D :eek: :D
     
  6. Frohickey thread starter macrumors 6502a

    Joined:
    Feb 27, 2003
    Location:
    PRK
    #6
    I don't understand the issue you are trying to make.
     
  7. pseudobrit macrumors 68040

    pseudobrit

    Joined:
    Jul 23, 2002
    Location:
    Jobs' Spare Liver Jar
    #7
    I don't understnad the issue you are trying to make either.

    A woman defended herself in her own home with a pistol. Yay.
     
  8. Frohickey thread starter macrumors 6502a

    Joined:
    Feb 27, 2003
    Location:
    PRK
    #8
    Actually, the woman was followed home from the car dealership that she owns. The law that allowed her to protect herself was the CCW law that was recently enacted in Michigan. Without that law, she would have been unarmed from the time she left the car dealership to the time she got inside of her house and taken and loaded the pistol from her gun safe. Without the CCW law, she would have probably been attacked at gunpoint as soon as she opened her front door, and we might have two women, the lady and her daughter, dead instead of alive.

    Precisely, that there has NOT been any increase in the vigilante-style shootings that opponents of CCW laws have always put forth in their arguments against these laws.

    Actually, another thought occurred to me. The fact that this woman's life and probably her daughter's as well were saved by the CCW law, makes you wonder how many lives ARE LOST in the states that do not have CCW laws, and makes women like these victims of the criminal element out on the streets.
     
  9. mactastic macrumors 68040

    mactastic

    Joined:
    Apr 24, 2003
    Location:
    Colly-fornia
    #9
    Good Guy 1, Bad Guy 1

    Link

    Wanna keep score? :eek: :eek: :eek:
     
  10. Desertrat macrumors newbie

    Joined:
    Jul 4, 2003
    Location:
    Terlingua, Texas
    #10
    mac, sure, on the "keeping score". Just check out Prof. Gary Kleck's work at FSU. He's a statistician; he peformed the largest known telephone survey in researching the use of firearms in self defense; some 4,800 homes throughout the states and with some sort of statistical scatter among ZIP Codes. The minimum ratio is roughly 8:6 for firearms used to prevent a crime vs. firearms misused to perpetrate a crime. His upper limit is roughly 3:1. If "truth is in the center", that's 1.6 million preventions vs. 600,000 successful crimes during a year.

    Caveat: "Usage" does not mean killing or wounding or even firing a warning shot. It includes a display or even a lie of "I have a gun!" "Prevent" means the Bad Guy quitting whatever action he'd proposed, because of a firearm in the possession of his potential victim.

    'Rat
     
  11. mactastic macrumors 68040

    mactastic

    Joined:
    Apr 24, 2003
    Location:
    Colly-fornia
    #11
    Did his crime stats include threats to use a weapon, displays of weapons, or lies about having weapons? Or only reported crimes? Or only successful convictions?
     
  12. Desertrat macrumors newbie

    Joined:
    Jul 4, 2003
    Location:
    Terlingua, Texas
    #12
    The basic question was, "Have you, or anybody in your home, ever used a firearm in defense against a crime?" (Had to do all the explanatory stuff about the survey, and guarantee anonymity; no names were ever asked.)

    "Used", as in my "CAVEAT" concerning usage.

    There was no requirement for inclusion in the results about any involvement with officialdom. This was a survey about usage.

    Kleck's work followed similar studies by Wright, Rossi & Daly ("Under The Gun" and others) and preceded Dr. Lott's work. Lott's statistical surveys of EVERY county in the U.S. survived peer review as to his statistical methodology. Lott's conclusions support Kleck's, although they're more dramatic in nature as regards the ongoing arguments over gun control.

    Let's don't get to wandering into gun control in this thread, please? The issue of the utility or hazards of the CHL is aplenty!

    :), 'Rat
     
  13. Krizoitz macrumors 6502a

    Krizoitz

    Joined:
    Apr 26, 2003
    Location:
    Wakayama, Japan
    #13
    No the best way to prevent gun accidents is to not have guns.
     
  14. pseudobrit macrumors 68040

    pseudobrit

    Joined:
    Jul 23, 2002
    Location:
    Jobs' Spare Liver Jar
    #14
    To base the results on when a gun is "used" means little. Let's see the data on how many deaths guns cause/prevent.
     
  15. wwidgirl macrumors member

    wwidgirl

    Joined:
    Feb 23, 2004
    #15
    Just for clarification:

    "Anti-gun advocates should be stating that, between 2000 and 2004, the gun deaths of 892 children could have been avoided through gun control or prohibition. With valid statistics that are properly used, real debate could then begin. "
    http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,113094,00.html

    And someone was praising John Lott who has been the subject of A LOT of embarassing criticism lately- accusations of falsifying a survey, pretending he was someone else in order to praise his own research, etc.

    "economists like Stanford's John Donohue and Georgetown's Jens Ludwig say that when first published in 1997, Lott's work was novel and even cutting edge. But the intervening years -- and increased scholarly scrutiny -- have not been kind to the "More Guns, Less Crime" idea. In fact, social scientists have turned away from the thesis even as Lott has stuck by his original conclusions. "
    http://www.motherjones.com/news/feature/2003/10/we_590_01.html

    http://www.cse.unsw.edu.au/~lambert/guns/lott98update.html
     
  16. Neserk macrumors 6502a

    Neserk

    Joined:
    Jan 1, 2004
    #16
    :p
     
  17. wwidgirl macrumors member

    wwidgirl

    Joined:
    Feb 23, 2004
    #17
    I realise that the stat posted previously was for the year 2000- 86 deaths. However, more than 800 deaths from 2000-2004 demonstrates that the stat is probably higher for the year 2000 unless deaths have been increasing since then.

    Also, "children" = those younger than 12 and this stat does not include suicides.
     
  18. takao macrumors 68040

    takao

    Joined:
    Dec 25, 2003
    Location:
    Dornbirn (Austria)
    #18
  19. SlyHunter macrumors newbie

    SlyHunter

    Joined:
    Apr 13, 2004
    Location:
    Florida
    #19
    Actually every now and then the liberal mass media gets on a band wagon and reports every bad thing ever done with a gun. This web site tries to report every good thing.
    http://www.packing.org/

    Oh they have a forum there too and talk about stuff like
    http://www.packing.org/talk/thread.jsp/25027/
     
  20. markjones05 macrumors 6502a

    markjones05

    Joined:
    Jan 15, 2003
    Location:
    Brooklyn, NY
    #20
    The point I'm making is who cares why she unloaded a full clip into the guy that forcibly pushed his way into the victims house at gun point.
     
  21. Krizoitz macrumors 6502a

    Krizoitz

    Joined:
    Apr 26, 2003
    Location:
    Wakayama, Japan
    #21
    The problem I have with sites like this is they have such a huge agenda, its hard to find any objectivity. I mean honestly how do you expect us to take it seriously when the site has the sole purpose of promoting guns.

    You claim that there is some "liberal mass media" like its some sort of conspiracy, yet you have yet to give any solid evidence that such a thing exists.

    Regardless of either of the above statements think about this. What is a gun for?

    A gun has one purpose. To kill. In the past few centuries in which guns have existed they have grown steadily more and more effective at doing so. It boggles my mind how a group, in this case the conservative right, who wants to ban Gay marriage because they think it is a threat to society hasn't noticed that guns do far more damage than any gay couple I have ever noticed. They go on and on about the second ammendmant like its some divine right. Honestly if the founding fathers could see what society was like today I seriously doubt they would have put that one in. Think about it.

    In 1776 a gun was used for hunting, it was part of a livelihood. In addition the idea was that the citizens needed to be able to form militia's to defend themselves since there was no standing army at the time.

    In 2004 no one short of Bob Redneck who lives in the middle of nowhere actually needs a gun to get food. Plus todays guns are far far FAR more deadly than anything that existed at the time of the founding of this nation.

    A well skilled rifleman could fire AT BEST six rounds per minute with a rifle. In addition they had to be pretty good at aiming as the weapons back then weren't exactly accurate. Today's hand guns can fire of six shots in a couple seconds with a pretty high degree of accuracy even from a novice. Not to mention that they are far deadlier when they do connect. A minnie ball hit wasn't exactly the death sentence that a couple bullets from a .45 are today.

    Plus the ammendmant was set up so that the citizens could defend their country. Now frankly if Russia tried to invade I'm fairly certain their tanks and bombs and missles would pretty much render our hand guns not so useful.

    So what you say, its for individual protection. Guess what? Not what the second ammendment defends.

    I recently read a op-ed piece where the writer complained about the selfishness of most Pro-choice people, how they only care about the womans rights and not the childs. Yet hypocritically they support the right to proliferate guns without regard for the consequences. It's my gun and you can't take it. Talk about selfish.

    Using guns to stop gun violence reminds me of that old axiom, "You have to fight fire with fire". Problem is unless you really know what you're doing fighting fire with fire just leads to a bigger fire. Likewise fighting gun violence by having more guns seems pretty darn stupid if you ask me.

    How about instead of using concealed weapons we get rid of as many guns as possible. I'm not sayign we have to get rid of them all, but certainly we can get rid of a lot of types of guns. What use does the average person have for a handgun anyway? And if companies weren't making them except for maybe the police and military, then even criminals would have a pretty hard time getting them illegally. Hard to get something when there isn't much of it, no matter how hard you try.

    Guns are for killing. Its that simple.
     
  22. markjones05 macrumors 6502a

    markjones05

    Joined:
    Jan 15, 2003
    Location:
    Brooklyn, NY
    #22

    What type of media is not subjective?.....none
     
  23. vwcruisn macrumors regular

    Joined:
    May 7, 2003
    Location:
    Santa Monica, Ca
    #23
    Nice post, I agree. Ive never shot a gung before in my life and obviously have never owned one and I feel quite safe when I go to bed at night. My friend is a cop with LAPD and everytime we hang out he is carrying one or two guns on him at all time. I can't honestly say that I don't feel any safer walking around with him, knowing he has two loaded weapons straped to his body, then if I was walking around with the average joe, who has no weapon. The way the government here in america keeps us in check is through fear, and apparantly a_lot_of_people are buying into it, and gun ownership is just the beginning of it.
     
  24. mactastic macrumors 68040

    mactastic

    Joined:
    Apr 24, 2003
    Location:
    Colly-fornia
    #24
    I like having one when I'm wilderness camping. There ARE legitimate uses for handguns. I don't believe in unfettered access to them the way some here do, but I certainly don't want to see the erradication of firearms.
     
  25. Frohickey thread starter macrumors 6502a

    Joined:
    Feb 27, 2003
    Location:
    PRK
    #25
    Hooboy.

    Police in the United States do not have a duty to protect the safety of individual members of society. This has been argued in several court cases, and each time it has held. So, the answer to your question is 'No, police are not responsible for your safety. If they were, they can and should be sued when they fail to protect.'

    Remember a man called Reginald Denny, a truckdriver that was attacked by thugs during the LA Riots.
     

Share This Page