"Pizza deliveryman who shot robber had gun permit"

A Domino’s pizza deliveryman who shot and killed a would-be robber in Pagedale has a valid permit to carry a weapon and appears to have acted in self-defense, according to St. Louis County police.

UPDATE: This is disappointingly true:

The pizza delivery driver who fatally shot a robber last week could have faced discipline over the incident had he not resigned, a Domino's spokesman said Wednesday.

Although the driver was being praised by bloggers with comments such as "Score one for the good guys," many corporations, like Domino's, prohibit armed employees. . . .

I assume that at least part of this due to expectations of liability. This in turn effects insurance rules. If the legal set up were changed, I think that many firms would start to let employees carry guns.

Permit Holder Pizza Delivery man kills robber

PAGEDALE, Mo. (AP) _ A pizza delivery man is claiming self-defense for the fatal shooting of a man in suburban St. Louis.

The incident happened last night in Pagedale. St. Louis County police spokeswoman Tracy Panus says two men called in a pizza order, then tried to rob the man who brought the pizza. . . . .

Why off-duty police (and their wives) should carry concealed handguns

Before, he never carried an off-duty weapon. Now he does. He never wanted his three children to be around guns; now his wife has a gun permit.

More People Turn to Stun Guns for Self-Defense

Stun Guns Rise in Popularity

A little warning here. The Taser shown in the video requires that you actually have to come into contact with the attacker (this is not the version apparently used by the police in Mississippi). For people who are weaker physically will take a great risk if they come into close contact. One must also realize that the version that the police are described as having does not work in a large percentage of cases because of the clothing warn by the criminal.

Criminal shot by victim: "I can't feel my legs and I got what I deserved."

EL DORADO, Ark. — An elderly man beaten unconscious by an assailant wielding a soda can later awoke and shot the man during an attempted robbery, police said.

Willie Lee Hill, 93, told police he saw the robber while in his bedroom Wednesday night. Hill confronted Douglas B. Williams Jr., 24, of El Dorado, who struck the elderly man at least 50 times, knocking him out, police said.

Hill, covered in blood from the attack, regained consciousness and pulled a .38-caliber handgun on Williams. Williams saw the gun and charged Hill, who fired one round, police said. The bullet struck Williams in the throat.

When police arrived, officers said Williams told them, "I can't feel my legs and I got what I deserved." . . . .

Thanks very much to Robert Aldridge for point this story out to me.

"We've forgotten how to fight back"

A deputy sheriff in Denver and an Army veteran writes:

"I don't blame the [Virginia Tech] victims for their own demise. I blame the non-confrontational attitude in America that may have stopped someone from fighting back. The basic human instinct of survival has been tamped down by the reemergence of the "Make love, not war" peacenik movement of the '60s, especially on our college campuses. Our kids are being taught to avoid conflict and try to reason with the unreasonable." . . . .

Thanks to Dan Gifford for sending this to me.

Carjacking stopped by Concealed handgun Permit Holder

Man shoots assailant

WARREN (Ohio) — A 55-year-old man thwarted a carjacking Tuesday morning after exchanging gunfire with the would-be thief. The victim told police he had pulled his vehicle into his Youngstown Road driveway about 12:45 a.m. when one of three men who was walking past his home started shooting at him.

The victim, who police reported has a conceal-carry gun permit, returned fire. The would-be thief jumped into the victim's car and backed into a street sign. He drove forward, went through a fence and slammed into a junk vehicle. The gunman jumped back over the fence and got into a car that had pulled up to the scene. The victim suffered a cut hand, but police say he wounded his assailant, who is in a Warren hospital pending filing of charges.

New Op-ed on What Should We Advise Women who are being Stalked?

Sonya Jones and I have a new op-ed on the recent failure of restraining orders in protecting women: Flawed Laws Help Stalkers Victimize Women.

What do you do when the police can’t protect you?

Police may be the single most important factor for reducing crime, but there is something the police themselves understand: They almost always arrive at the crime scene after the crime has occurred.

Expecting people to trust the police to protect them and to behave passively is a recipe for disaster.

The last couple of weeks have seen a couple prominent murders where restraining orders did women little good. Numerous news organizations, such as ABC News, have run headlines asking "How Do You Stop a Stalker From Killing You?"

Unfortunately, despite acknowledging that "many women find themselves on their own," the media are drawing the wrong lessons. To simply advise that women "Get the hell away from him" often doesn't go anywhere near far enough. . . .

Advice of DC police officer to citizen fearful of crime: get a gun

Shelly Parker did everything she could to keep her home safe. She owned a dog. She called D.C. police when she suspected illegal activity on her block. She installed a security camera on her front window.

Her crime-fighting efforts made an impression. One night, Parker found her car window smashed and saw rocks scattered around the vehicle. She felt it was retaliation for her vigilance.

"That really disturbed me to my core," recalled Parker, who said she often received verbal taunts while walking her malamute, Barney, near her home on the northeastern edge of Capitol Hill.

A police officer gave her some advice, Parker said.

Get a gun, he told her. . . .

DC Gun Ban Struck Down

The Federal Appeals Court today struck down the ban. A copy of the decision can be found here. Remember you read it here first.

The first paragraph in the decision says it all: "Appellants contest the district court's dismissal of their complaint alleging that the District of Columbia's gun control laws violate their Second Amendment rights. The court held that the Second Amendment . . . does not bestow any rights on individuals except, perhaps, when an individual serves in an organized militia such as today's National Guard. We reverse." Also interesting (p. 57): the court clearly recognizes that restrictions are unconstitutional when they prevent guns from being used in self-defense. The Appeals court granted summary judgement for the plaintiffs.

In the dissent, I wonder if the Judge understands that her decision (p. 3) implies that people should be able to own machine guns. They are surely weapons used in militias.

I have no doubt that this is going to the US Supreme Court. There is significant disagreement across the circuit courts that I think there is no doubt that the Supreme Court will grant cert. This is actually a very high risk gamble. IF the gun ban is struck down, it will have major implications. If not, no gun regulation will be deemed "unreasonable."

UPDATE: Fox News has posted a useful discussion here

"Denying self-defense to GIs in Iraq"

It would be an interesting study to see what hapens to the number of troop deaths before and after the adoption of these rules. You raise the cost of defending people and it makes them more likely targets.

As part of President Bush's troop surge now under way in Iraq, he insisted that Iraqi leaders "lift needless restrictions on Iraqi and coalition forces." That's an important step, but a deeply ironic one, because it overlooks other unreasonable restrictions imposed on US soldiers – by the US government.

In 2005, the Pentagon amended its Standing Rules of Engagement (ROE). The new rules make it harder for US troops to boldly counter hostile acts, and they specifically allow commanders to limit the right of soldiers to defend themselves!

The United States seeks to bring peace to Iraq by winning the "hearts and minds" of the civilian population. Unnecessary collateral damage and innocent civilian deaths undermine this effort. Presumably, the new ROE, which allow unit commanders to "limit individual self-defense by members of their unit" after notifying the secretary of Defense, were adopted with a noble purpose in mind: to lessen civilian casualties. However, limiting the right of self-defense is too drastic and it puts soldiers at risk.

Commanders take these restrictions seriously. Newsweek magazine recently quoted Marine Capt. Rob Secher, who complained that "anytime an American fires a weapon there has to be an investigation into why there was an escalation of force." . . . .