Police identify man killed in shootout

This guy stole a car as well as the gun. Don't gun owners bear a responsibility to society at large to keep their guns secure? - Wayne

* * * * * * * * * * *

Police identify man killed in shootout

OREM, Utah (AP) - Police in Orem have identified the man who was shot and killed by officers on Monday as Russell Ray Clark.

The 25-year-old California man reportedly shot an Orem officer in the leg with a .357 magnum revolver before he was gunned down by four police officers.

Officer Matt Pedersen suffered a minor grazing wound on his leg, said Lt. Doug Edwards.

Clark was reportedly driving a white Volkswagen around 2:30 a.m. Monday. An officer tired to pull him over for driving without headlights. The car turned out to be stolen, and Clark led officers on a chase, police said. Clark crashed the car and ran away.

He apparently stole the revolver from another vehicle, and police caught up with him a few hours later.

<more>

http://www.trib.com/AP/wire_detail.php?wire_num=146642

was locked or not. It really doesn't matter. The gun was secured in another person's property (the car).

Even if it was in a locked safe (which are not infallable), the blame should rest with the POS who STOLE both the gun and the car.

B

... for not properly securing his or her weapon.

what do you define as "properly" securing the weapon?

If I lock it in my car, the act of locking it shows that I do not want people to get into it. The same for locking a safe.

The guy STOLE the gun. I don't care if the gun owner left it on his front lawn, it is his property, and not the crook's.

wasn't it? (Nope.)

just goes to show you that NO MATTER what you do, you can still be the victim of criminals.

And, criminals will ALWAYS find a way to get firearms.

"And, criminals will ALWAYS find a way to get firearms."
Especially with a corrupt industry doing all it can to sell them guns...

Crooks will always find ways of getting guns.

THAT'S why the gun industry is fighting so hard to keep those loopholes open...

and tell the manufacturers in America to board their plants.

Crooks will still get guns. What's so hard about that to understand?

Gun manufacturers have spent millions keeping loopholes open so they CAN sell guns to criminals.

oh' one with all the knowledge.

1. What gun company sells directly to the public

2. What percentage of sales by licensed dealers are made to criminals.

3. Which manufacturers are selling to criminals (specific companies)

next time.

Or was it locked in the trunk?

It was not the criminal's property and he should have not taken it.

they still get stolen. NEVER leave a gun in your car cop or civilian.

...aren't you just ASKING for someone to steal it?

"asking" for it. Like when I keep my car in plain sight...I am not "asking" for anybody to steal it.

B

For example, I have a swimming pool in my yard. By law, I have to have it fenced in, because if a neiborhood kid saw my pool, jumped in, and drown, I would be respinsible.

I believe the same thing would apply here. If you leave a gun in plain sight in your car and someone steals it, you should bear partial responsibility for any illegal acts committed with that gun. Maybe that would make people keep their guns more secure.

the property is not theirs and they should know better than to touch it, swim in it, eat it, whatever. Hands off.

B

If you choose to own a gun, you bear the responsibility to keep that gun secure. 24/7.

are they ASKING to be broken into?

Given your example of the swimming pool, if you fenced it in, would you no longer be responsible for the kid jumping the fence and drowning? Because if the gun is kept in a locked container like a car, I can't see the difference. In both cases, the person broke in to someplace they weren't supposed to be, despite efforts to keep them out. If fencing in a pool relieves liability, why shouldn't locking the gun in a car?

Just don't do it. Even if you have electronic locks and even if you are just leaving your car for 2 minutes.

Thieves are determined and quick.

by that same exact reasoning, women who dress provocatively are asking to be raped.

NOBODY is "asking" to be victimized.

...I believe you bear some responsibility if that gun is later used to commit a crime.

if you make it easy for a rapist to gain access to your private parts, do you bear some responsibility for being raped? How about if you just dress like a slut? Does that justify a rapist attacking you? Because that's EXACTLY the logic you're using. Frankly, I find it nauseating.

Regardless of where in the car the gun was kept the guy was a convicted car thief. You might ask what the gun
was doing in the car to begin with. This is where carry restrictions for CCW holders create a problem.
They vary from state to state; sometimes it's places where alcohol is served (or where 51% or more of the business
comes from serving alcohol), hospitals, places of worship, court rooms, schools, sports arenas, etc. On a Federal level
it's illegal to carry a firearm into a post office. The problem arises when a CCW holder has to enter a building
where carrying is prohibited. Oftentimes the only option is leaving their firearm in the vehicle.
And no, not carrying to begin with or not going into a place that has restrictions, is not an option.

Stealing is wrong and illegal.

as a "locked container"? What's the difference between a locked car and a locked gun cabinet?

The responsibility lies with the person who broke into the car, not the car owner.

shit, make it a convertible, with the top down and the gun on the front seat!

"The responsibility lies with the person who broke into the car, not the car owner." is 100% accurate,

B

for not wearing a burqa. It's TOTAL bullshit. I'm surprised at you, CO...

"that's like saying a woman bears part of the blame for being raped...
for not wearing a burqa."

NO. It is not.

And speaking as a woman who has been violently sexually assaulted, this is one of those times when I reach my fill of being exploited for the purposes of someone else's agenda, whether or not I share that agenda, frankly.

My only responsibility in the circumstances in which I was assaulted was to MYSELF; I was "responsible", to myself, for protecting myself against foreseeable risks, in this case, the risk of sexual assault. I engaged in risky behaviour (hey, is there any behaviour in life that isn't risky?), and someone took advantage of that to do somethat that was illegal and vicious and WRONG. **I** suffered the consequences of both the risk I took and the decision he made.

In the case of a firearms owner whose firearm is not "properly" secured against theft, the persons at risk of being harmed very seldom include the firearms owner him/herself. The persons to whom the firearms owner has a responsibility are EVERYONE ELSE who might be harmed by whoever steals the firearm. NO ONE ELSE was harmed by my decision, even if it was a risky one.

No, we do not compel people to focus their entire energies on avoiding risks to themselves or others. We can perfectly well, however, require that when they do things, they take precautions that are in some measure proportionate to the foreseeable risks to others that are involved in what they are doing.

I don't give a shit about the firearms owner and the risk s/he takes that his/her firearm might be stolen. If s/he wanted to leave a firearm lying around in a car and risk losing it to a thief, I just wouldn't care any more than I'd care if s/he had left a computer lying around in a car. Their problem, their business ... as long as what they do is not creating a situation in which harm could result to others.

When I took whatever risk I took that could have been avoided, and was violently sexually assaulted, that was my problem and my business. Nothing I did created any risk of any harm to anyone else whatsoever.

But when a firearms owner leaves a firearm lying around where it can be stolen AND USED TO HARM OTHER PEOPLE, we have just a slightly different situation. And just a slightly different kind and degree of responsibility.

Where I'm at (and yeah, I don't doubt *not* where many others are at), it is against the law to leave one's car keys in the ignition, even in one's own driveway. This is not because my society wants to protect car owners from their own stupidity by making it harder for people to steal their cars (although this does play a role, given the public resources, police and courts, and other people's private resources, insurance, that are taken up when this happens). In fact, it is precisely because people who steal cars often use those cars to cause damage and personal injury to other people.

The "responsibility" of protecting the public against the harm that can be done using things that one owns IS a responsibility that the public can perfectly well impose if it so chooses. The public can mandate the precautions that must be taken, and can assign serious consequences to failure to take the mandated precautions.

And you can stop manufacturing false analogies out of my life and experience, thank you very much. I will not be a passive victim of your objectification.

.

...for responding so eloquently in a way I never could.

:-)

On my job I never know what to say when I'am dispatched to a incident like this. I just think whatever I do say could never be enough. As guns in cars go, 33 states have shall issue laws, now the problem with many states then they go and put restrictions on where you can take those guns. Or like Texas business's can put signs in their windows saying concealed weapons not welcomed here. Now what is a person supposed to do?. I had to take a urine test a month ago and since the clinic is not in the best part of town I decided I was not going to leave my gun in the car and wore it into the clinic. The doctor (female) told me I had to take off my jacket, I informed her that I was armed and we had two choices, she could live with it or I could leave and risk my job because I was not going to place it in my car. She said she had no problems with guns and didn't mind me keeping it on my person. Well back to subject, I feel states have two choices they can either allow carry everywhere and if they cant do that then don't issue at all.

"My only responsibility in the circumstances in which I was assaulted was to MYSELF; I was "responsible", to myself, for protecting myself against foreseeable risks, in this case, the risk of sexual assault. I engaged in risky behaviour (hey, is there any behaviour in life that isn't risky?), and someone took advantage of that to do somethat that was illegal and vicious and WRONG. **I** suffered the consequences of both the risk I took and the decision he made."


After reading this paragraph, it sounds like you ARE accepting some responsibility for being sexually assaulted. That's a very strange position for a self-declared Feminist to hold. Am I misreading your statement? Because it sounds like you're blaming yourself for being sexually assaulted.


"The "responsibility" of protecting the public against the harm that can be done using things that one owns IS a responsibility that the public can perfectly well impose if it so chooses. The public can mandate the precautions that must be taken, and can assign serious consequences to failure to take the mandated precautions."

Normally in the US, being a victim of a crime after taking reasonable precautions to protect yourself and your property absolves you of criminal liability. If you were to leave the gun out where anybody could simply take it, you'd share at least some moral responsibility. Being victimized after taking reasonable precautions to prevent victimization (like locking your gun in your car) sounds an awful lot like "Blame the Victim".

theives had a responsibility to society not to steal stuff...

guess I was wrong!

Obviously this guy was desperate and couldn't find a gun show.

Otherwise he coulda gotten 11 of the things!

here in J/PS today.

when any would be thief can simply open a bank account and walk right out the door with a brand
spanking new firearm as others here would have us believe. :)

Don't gun owners bear a responsibility to society at large to keep their guns secure?

Are you going to give us your idea of what secure is?

From the article:

Clark was on parole for auto theft in California.

WTF was this asshole doing out of prison?

I'd like to know the circumstances under which a gun was left in a vehicle where this waste of skin could steal it. Was the owner compelled to leave the gun locked in his or her car because he or she had to walk into a "gun-free zone" such as a government building or school? I submit that especially in a state where people can get concealed-carry permits, any building in which it is prohibited to carry a concealed firearm must provide secure lockers for guns.

I suspect this is a case of the "solution" to one supposed problem creating additional problems.

but shot down (pun intended) :)


I submit that especially in a state where people can get concealed-carry permits, any building in
which it is prohibited to carry a concealed firearm must provide secure lockers for guns.

I suspect this is a case of the "solution" to one supposed problem creating additional problems.

Wouldn't it be ironic if the owner of the stolen gun was in a courthouse at the time.


http://www.jointogether.org/gv/news/summaries/reader/0,2061,553477,00.html

The Utah Judicial Council, which sets rules for Utah courts,
voted against gun lockers in state courthouses, the
Associated Press reported Aug. 17.

The issue was raised by Utah Attorney General Mark
Shurtleff who said that the courthouses were violating a new
state law by not providing lockers for those legally
permitted to carry concealed weapons.

In deciding not to install gun lockers for visitors with concealed weapons, the Utah
Judicial Council said it had a right to control security at juvenile and district courts.

More...

http://faircourts.org/newsViewer.asp?breadcrumb=7&docID=1229