Shot in the Dark

An Apparently Not Very Bright Guy With A Gun

If you are a carry permittee, you should read this story and literally do nothing the Mr. Davis in this story did.

Workers told police that Davis (the “victim”) was protective of the [liquor store where the incident took place]. Davis accused Edwards [the shoplifter who ended up charged with shooting Davis] of concealing a bottle of vodka and took the bottle from him and demanded Edwards leave the store.

According to the charges, Edwards said he had a gun and started digging through his backpack. But, as it turned out, Davis was carrying a weapon himself, telling the victim that he had a “license” and “displayed” the weapon.

Police say surveillance video showed the two men move out to the parking lot where they started fighting. The charges state:

“Edwards and [Davis] eventually went to the sidewalk outside the store. Edwards appeared to threaten [Davis] with pepper spray, and the two men got into a heated exchange. Edwards grabbed [Davis’] shoulders. KD tried to remove his handgun from his jacket while wrestling with Edwards. [Davis’] handgun fell to the ground. When KD reached to retrieve the gun, Edwards pushed [Davis] away from the gun into the parking lot.”

Mr.. Davis did literally everything wrong, legally and tactically.

  • He was a willing participant.
  • Not sure how you would claim a threat to your life and health from someone stealing vodka.
  • He got into scuffle and allowed himself to lose his weapon.

Don’t do any of this.

GIven his behavior, I doubt Davis had a carry permit; if he did, I’ve got questions for his instructor.

Posted

in

by

Mitch Berg

Tags:

Comments

15 responses to “An Apparently Not Very Bright Guy With A Gun”

  1. kinlaw Avatar
    kinlaw

    Really need to find out if he was a legal licensee, doesn’t seem like it, but you know how our media are about facts.

  2. golfdoc50 Avatar
    golfdoc50

    We need common sense vodka laws.

  3. bikebubba Avatar
    bikebubba

    I tend to believe, shall we say, that the accused was “bending down” to reach his preferred brand (i.e. not exactly drinking from the top shelf), and I’m guessing that in defense of hooch in a plastic bottle, the deceased may have been a customer as well.

    But that said, I had an experience not too long ago where a permit holder was ignoring a lot of best practices in carrying openly as he picked up his son at my sons’ Trail Life (Boy Scouts without some of their baggage and with more Bible) troop. So I know there are some permit holders out there who are not exactly remembering their carry permit training very well.

  4. Joe Doakes Avatar
    Joe Doakes

    Mitch is absolutely right about the current law of self-defense.

    Can’t shoot somebody for stealing a bottle of vodka.
    Can’t shoot somebody for porch-pirating the medicine delivered to your home.
    Can’t shoot somebody for car-jacking your vehicle.
    Can’t shoot somebody for knocking you down and grabbing your ATM withdrawl.
    Can’t shoot somebody for . . . .

    . . . you know what? maybe the current law on self-defense could stand another look. Why are the criminals the ones with all the rights? Why must the stand-up citizens take armed robbery lying down? Why can’t we shoot them?

    Liberals always warn us of blood in the streets but we have that already. Maybe the problem is it’s the wrong people’s blood?

    I’m getting fed up with coddling. I’m about ready for some cracking down.

  5. Mammuthus Primigenesis Avatar
    Mammuthus Primigenesis

    So, the dude was hanging around a liquor store in a diverse part of town,, armed, hoping to catch shoplifters, and he wasn’t the owner, an employee, or a security guard, but “just some guy”?

  6. jdm Avatar
    jdm

    You know, JD, I find your comment interesting and convincing, but wrong. I don’y think we want normies feeling comfortable about shooting to kill for anything but when they feel threatened to death. Possibly about protecting others from death. While I’m open to discussion about any particular shooting episode, in general, I’d prefer to not have to worry about some normie having a temper tantrum and shooting an innocent bystander.

    The problem, as you alluded, is that those liberals let people out of jail who should be there for a long time, much longer than present, and possibly for good. Jail *may* serve the purpose of rehabilitation, but it primarily serves to protect normies from the criminals inside. That’s it. Period.

  7. AllenS Avatar
    AllenS

    If Mr. Davis was a veteran, he wouldn’t need an instructor, just his DD-214 (military record) showing that he was honorably discharged.

  8. Joe Doakes Avatar
    Joe Doakes

    Right now, self-defense doesn’t cover property, only life. I propose to expand it to include defense of myself and my stuff. JDM objects: “I’d prefer to not have to worry about some normie having a temper tantrum and shooting an innocent bystander.”

    That analysis assumes the reason Permit to Carry Holders aren’t presently blasting innocent bystanders is Permit Holders are afraid of being punished. If the fear of punishment was removed (by expanding self-defense to cover property), Permit Holders would start blasting at anything that moves and there’d be blood in the streets. This is the same argument Liberals use every time guns are discussed.

    The thing is, we already have blood in the streets. Innocent bystanders are already being shot, not by Permit Holders but by thugs. Why not even the odds? They shoot looters after disasters, right? So declare a disaster and let people start shooting looters/robbers/carjackers until crime rates sink to a reasonable level and the temporary emergency is over.

    It’s easy to be blithe about “it’s just stuff” when it’s not your stuff.

  9. Pureblood Pete Avatar
    Pureblood Pete

    JD, “stand your ground” is what you’re looking for.

    Last year I caught “a youth” looking to steal my classic car (now sold). He was in my shed, not my house, he wasn’t threatening my life per se, just stealing my stuff. I confronted him, and would have shot him dead if he’d have done anything other than what I told him to do.

    And he fucking knew it.

    When thieving scumbags know their victims have the right to defend themselves and their stuff, it’s a new game.

    It’s too bad y’all have to put up with all that shit. Life can be so much simpler.

  10. Joe Doakes Avatar
    Joe Doakes

    Pete, I think Stand Your Ground would be a sensible start but I don’t think it’s enough. I think we need Defense of Self and Stuff.

    The difference between “must retreat” and “stand your ground” is where you defend yourself when you fear for your life. It still requires you to fear for your life, not your stuff.

    Looters Will Be Shot On Sight expands the concept to defense of life and of stuff. That’s where I want to go.

  11. jdm Avatar
    jdm

    This is the same argument Liberals use every time guns are discussed

    No, it’s not, but I’m impressed by your rhetorical abilities.

    It’s easy to be blithe about “it’s just stuff” when it’s not your stuff.

    I didn’t make this argument.

    And you completely ignored getting these looters/robbers/carjackers off the streets by jailing them and keeping them there until crime rates sink to a reasonable level. The experiment from the 90s in NYC was quite successful in this regard.

  12. Pureblood Pete Avatar
    Pureblood Pete

    In Minnesota, if you’re black, and a gangsta (aren’t they all?), and a member of your posse busts caps into a rival crew’s ass, you now have the “Nigga be actin’ independent an’ sheeit” defense. You walk until it’s your turn to be independent.

    https://m.startribune.com/one-of-two-suspects-in-mall-of-america-shooting-is-released-from-jail-without-charges/600132950/

  13. Pureblood Pete Avatar
    Pureblood Pete

    “ And you completely ignored getting these looters/robbers/carjackers off the streets by jailing them and keeping them there until crime rates sink to a reasonable level.”

    Call it the “anti-jogging initiative”.

  14. Joe Doakes Avatar
    Joe Doakes

    Thanks. It helps to have great source material to work with. Much appreciated.

  15. jdm Avatar
    jdm

    I think it’s interesting and amusing to mention in this regard to mention the “The Butterfield Effect”, as in Fox Butterfield.

    It’s used to refer to a person who “makes a statement that is ludicrous on its face, yet it reveals what the speaker truly believes”, especially if expressing a supposed paradox when a causal relationship should be obvious. The particular article that sparked this was titled “More Inmates, Despite Drop In Crime” by Butterfield in the New York Times on November 8, 2004.

    Butterfield apparently caused a revolution in Criminal Science because liberals when they took over just started letting out and even just not prosecuting criminals at all. And so here we are.

Leave a Reply

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.