Man flirts with car full of girls, promptly gets shot to death

Police: Flirting Leads To Man's Death

Man Shot While Riding In Car On Interstate

POSTED: 12:25 pm EDT May 31, 2004
MIAMI -- Police say a man was shot to death while driving on Interstate 395, shortly after flirting with a car full of girls.

Police said Malcolm Marshall was in the back seat of a car, and was flirting with several girls in another car driving on I-395 toward the beach around 1 a.m. Monday.

more...
http://www.local10.com/news/3364735/detail.html

:eyes:

The missing middle of the report is actually kind of important:

Police said Malcolm Marshall was in the back seat of a car, and was flirting with several girls in another car driving on I-395 toward the beach around 1 a.m. Monday.

Miami police spokesman Delrish Moss said another vehicle, a rented Chevrolet Tahoe pulled along side Marshall's car, and Willie James Lumsdon, 37, who was in the back seat of the Tahoe, began mocking Marshall.

When the cars exited the interstate, police said Lumsdon pulled out a gun and fired at the car Marshall was riding in. Investigators said a shot went through the back window of Marshall's car, striking him in the head.

The "girls" evidently had nothing at all to do with it.

Who knows; they may have been packing heat, but they were likely a little short on the testosterone the recipe called for.

...all those guns in Florida have made everyone safer - NOT!!!!

Guns is guns....

and still has the highest murder rate in the US of A
that will show what?

some people will try to defend pooping in the park guns...

We're talking about FLORIDA - you know, the state that Bush stole in 2000???

But still don't understand what that has to do with your remark about the guns making FL not safer.
Guns are guns, you are right about that. Tools.
There are many more guns here than in Washington, DC, but still its mush safer here than there.
Availability of guns has nothing to do with safety.
Remember, up until 500 years ago people killed each other without guns. And were very good at it.

NO one was talking about CCW except you. And availability of guns has EVERYTHING to do with safety - the fewer guns, the fewer shootings.

Period.

Still more murders per capita than here in Orlando.

Period.

P.S. Peace! How's the back?

...who blew someone away for flirting. Yes, guns sure make us safer - NOT!!!

BTW, the back is unchanged - still hurts.

That's the only reason I have guns.

You should consider surgery. Also they were talking about a papain injection which dissolves the herniated disk, but so far its 50% successful. On the other hand its much cheaper and easy on the patient.

Right now, the two doctors I'm seeing about my back pain are doing epidural injections - so far, they provide some relief. When they don't any more, then they'll talk to me about surgical options.

the cause of the pain. The disk is still pinching the nerve.
I made the mistake to wait to long, now there is a numb 2x2 inches spot on my right foot. There is a chance that in 3-4 years it will go away, but I'm not holding my breath.

...the pain management doc I'm seeing for the herniated discs in my lower back says the logical procedure would be an IDET, where they attempt to seal the disc. But it only has a 50-percent success rate....

it is the one that irritates the nerve and causes the pain.

...they stick electrodes into the disc wall and use the heat caused by an electric current to cauterize the disc wall, sealing it.

Like I said before, it's only 50% successful, so I'm leery about having it done. Plus I'd be totally disabled for a few weeks and unable to life anything for about six months. Since we're getting ready to sell our house, that's not an option.

In my case, the herniated discs in my lower back are pressing on the sciatic nerves, sending pain across my pelvis and down my legs. All thanks to an asshole who had to go 90 in a 55-MPH zone and rear-end me.

But there is a part of it which is already outside. Does it stay there?
I didn't see mine, but the doctor told me it was like 2 inches big.

...they talked about removing some of the disc fluid at the same time.

I'm still not having it done.

Works great for me.

For 18 months, I was going once, twice or three times a week. Plus massage therapy, physical therapy, and acupuncture. And my back was getting worse. Finally I got the insurance company to authorize an MRI, which showed one herniated disc. A disk-o-gram showed that I had two herniated discs.

I haven't been back to a chiropractor since.

Back in 1993, I was rear-ended while stopped at a stop sign - two days later, I couldn't move my right arm. I went to a chiropractor and got immediate relief, because it was a soft-tissue injury.

Right now, I'm dealing with soft tissue, herniated discs, and misaligned vertebrae and collarbone. That's why I'm goung to a pain management specialist (for my lower back) and a spine specialist (for my neck).

instead of "touching with a hand". At least the ones i had the misfortune to meet.

also allow all the idiots you speak of to have guns. Ever think of that?

The laws that allow you to have guns
also allow all the idiots you speak of to have guns. Ever think of that?

That's the price of FREEDOM, friend.

I'm 160 lbs, 5 months after back surgery, never been a "street fighter" - i need something to equalize 250lbs of an idiot who has a fight every weekend in the bar.
I was threatened twice with a gun in a country were at that time only police had guns. Idiots always find guns.

And with four herniated discs, I'd be rather useless in a fight. but I still would not get a gun - I believe that each new gun only adds to a national problem.

I've never had the desire to own a gun. Never have. Never will.

I see things that you take for granted and ignore.
I think that guns are not the problem. But there definitely is a problem with a lot of the people ho have them.

You can't fix the people side of that equation. The only side you can fix is the guns side.

Well, if these people are beyond help there are places where they can be warehoused so that they are no longer a danger to the public. What would be nice is to then tackle the situations that created such people in the first place.

This is the difference in philosophy we have down here that makes the gun control laws y'all propose so unpopular and ignored.

This is the difference in philosophy we have down here that makes the gun control laws y'all propose so unpopular and ignored.

the complete ignorance continually displayed by the gun grabbers about guns and federal gun laws.

Why just today someone was telling us how the AWB bans the sale of assault weapons. I believe machine guns and destructive devices were mentioned.

Well, if these people are beyond help there are places where they can be warehoused so that they are no longer a danger to the public.

That certainly is a difference in philosophy. A lot of cultures in the world just don't talk widely about "warehousing" people.

The plain fact is that without firearms, the people in question might be "beyond help", but they would not be a fraction as dangerous to anyone else as they are with firearms.

And people in some cultures regard the enormous violation of the right to liberty that you are talking about as just a tad more ... problematic ... than the trivial violations of any rights that measures to keep firearms out of those people's hands would involve. And are, of course, aware that what you are proposing is essentially ineffective, while removing their access to firearms would pretty much solve the problem.

Yup, actually eliminating that access might involve something more than trivial rights violations for other people. But there are in fact halfway measures that are justifiable and do have some effect.

And amazingly enough, we do manage to find and agree to such measures in just about every other realm of life. I can't be prevented from driving a car, but I can be required to drive a car that meets safety standards, to register my car, to acquire a licence to drive a car, to drive it only where permitted, and to obey speed limits and highway safety rules. I can't be prevented from voicing my opinion, but I can be required to do it in a way that doesn't disrupt a religious service or pervert the justice system or jeopardize my country's security or cause another individual to fear for his/her life.

And I'm damned if I can figure out why people who possess firearms should not be required to do so in a way that is at least more likely to prevent access to firearms by criminals and less likely to result in harm to other people than is now the case in the US.

The difference in philosophy is very plainly that the philosophy that wins out on one side of the divide is "me, me, me!"

Jay don't care if other people are locked up indefinitely as long as he has a popgun to play with...

Let the Eagle so-o-a-a-a-ar....

You surely don't believe this. Do you think the mentality required to intentionally kill someone is going to change by removing one tool from these killer's arsenal, even if it were possible? Sorry, it doesn't, and they remain just as deadly.

Since Library_Max says they can't be changed, I say cut the losses now and take these people out of circulation. This approach has worked well here. Until it is possible to "fix" them, they don't need to be out amongst us.

Is this cruel? Perhaps, but until we find a better alternative this is the way it has to be. Resources are better spent trying to keep a second generation of these types from being created.

...are only guilty of the crime of being poor a shot at living a better life and having the opportunities that are available to those that don't live in a neighborhood full of violence and despair, with death being as common as an overdue bill.

Sorry, I believe in busting ass to help those that want a better life achieve one. I have no idea what you believe in.

"giving people who are only guilty of the crime of being poor a shot at living a better life "
By warehousing some, while flooding their neighborhoods with guns...Uh-HUH.

"I believe in busting ass to help those that want a better life achieve one."
Funny, then that the politicans touting "gun rights" are doing just the opposite, isn't it?

"I have no idea what you believe in."
Gee, Jay, what a shame liberalism is such a fucking mystery to you. Perhaps if you spent less time reading gun porn and more time reading something like The Nation or Mother Jones you might have a clue.

I surmise that "politicans touting "gun rights"" is a reference to Republicans. Correct? That would be about par for your particular course. Here's a funny for you. Guess who I am working with right now on some issues regarding the poor and the War On Drugs. Give up? I'm working with a Republican congressman. Know why? Because I can't get anyone with a "D" by their name interested; it's too risky. Is he being altruistic? No. The Republicans want that minority vote and love suggestions about ways to get it. Will this hurt the Democrats? Yes. Do I care? No. They have a standing invitation to the party. If they choose not to attend that is their own problem.

Here is a little about what I am doing if you want to get involved:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=104&topic_id=1708531&mesg_id=1708531&page=

Liberalism is no mystery to me and I don't need to read publications telling me about how the world will only be wonderful if every elected position is held by a Democrat. I'm not going to wait around for that impossibility.

"Give up? I'm working with a Republican congressman. Know why?"
Because they're used to hearing from trigger-happy "enthusiasts"?

"The Republicans want that minority vote and love suggestions about ways to get it."
Yeah, it shows in everything they do (snicker).

"Liberalism is no mystery to me and I don't need to read publications telling me about how the world will only be wonderful if every elected position is held by a Democrat."
Gee, is that what the Nation and Mother Jones say? News to me...but then I actually read both.

...to have to lock in the minority vote to stay in power with the changing demographics and they are always looking for ways to achieve this goal...and some are willing to take risks.

I don't read those publications. I'm just guessing their content based on what you say; I'm not interested in reading them now that I think of it.

"I don't read those publications."
No shit, sherlock. Maybe if you did you'd know something besides gun porn and stale GOP propaganda.

You are proposing a law that would lead to the permanent imprisonment of stupid people, excessively aggressive people, people who can't control their tempers, people who don't take care or keep track of their belongings, people who consider only their own rights and not anybody else's, people who don't think before they act, etc. etc.

Wow. "That approach has worked well here." Where is "here," I wonder? What color is the sky there, perchance?

...for those that choose violence as a way of life. This is already the law in many states.

I'm in Texas, and there is a pretty blue sky here.

No interest in protecting people from violence, just interest in punishing people afterwards.

Since the topic was idiots with guns, not career criminals, this seems somewhat nonresponsive anyway. Rather like an attempt to change the subject, in fact.

the cardinal rule of the RKBA crowd...

...with all the rest is a favorable response to the deterrent effect.

You mean Virginia no longer has some of the most lenient gun ownership laws in the country? Or do you mean that it is no longer possible to walk or drive from Virginia to DC in a matter of ten minutes or less with a whole load of guns?

The instant a ban on the possession of something is brought into force, no one possesses it ever again.

Just how like the instant the ban on theft was brought into force, no one ever stole anything again ...


Some people do think that the very absence (or inadequacy) of deterrent effect in the case of bans on the possession of things, where there is no impediment to possessing them, makes it sensible to look at other ways to deter/impede possession of them.

Y'know ... like how stores put inky tags on their things to deter people from stealing them, or lock their things in display cases to impede people who would otherwise steal them. Stores really don't just say "well there's a law against stealing, so nobody's going to steal our things". And how not many of us leave our stuff lying around on the front lawn at night and hope it won't get stolen. Many of us just don't think it's too sensible to say "hmm, there's a law agin it, so nobody's gonna do it".


And the damned thing is that the people who say "heavens to betsy, it's illegal to own a gun in DC and yet people are still getting shot??" are the very same ones rejecting any other kind of measure for impeding the harmful use of firearms, and calling for mo' better laws to stop people from engaging in it.

I wonder whether they also leave their stuff lying around on the front lawn at night, and then demand mo' better laws when somebody takes it ...

Local and state bans and restrictions, requirements for training and trigger-locks, waiting periods, background checks, etc. may protect us against Homer Homeowner getting lickered up on the Fourth of July or shooting the meter reader because he thinks he's a burglar or leaving his gun loaded and where his kids can get at it. But they won't protect us from criminals with guns. The only thing that would work there is a nationwide ban. I'm sorry to undercut the "nobody is saying that" argument by saying it, but in the long run it's the only thing that's going to work.

I'm still wondering how you're planning on getting guns banned in the US.

I'll bite on the ban thing.
Give us an example were any ban had worked. On anything.
A little history:
-Prohibition - didn't work;
-war on drugs - you can buy everything on the corner, right next to 7-11;
-prostitution - right in front of the said 7-11;
-child pornography - sometimes it takes a while to clean it from your email box;
-illegal immigrants - right behind 7-11 you can hire as many mexicans as you need for your nursery or house project;

Do I need to continue?
Now let us know how you suppose your ban will work?

and about one-fifth of our gun violence per capita. Other countries have similar success.

When you can make a gun by letting apple cider get too old or by fermenting potato skins, when you can carry a million dollars worth of guns in a briefcase or swallow a plastic bag containing $100K worth of guns, when you can send guns through the Internet, then I'll be impressed with the analogy of guns to Prohibition, drugs, or porn. As for prostitution and illegal immigration, they are no-equipment-needed. False analogies, each and every.

Let me tell you, a single-shot pistol is WAY easier to make.
And no odor too...
How much booze can you fit in a suitcase?
You see, it goes both ways.
I'm not sure, but i think UK had 1/5 of the gun violence even before the ban. So nothing changed there.

If not, how can you claim that it's easy?

Anyway, I would be very happy to see all the automatic and semiautomatic guns replaced with single-shot pistols. Especially the kind that tend to blow up in the shooter's face.

I've made fruit-juice alcohol (by accident). I know how easy it is to make. Distilling is not necessary. A suitcase is hardly relevant when any home hobbyist can make a bathtub full of booze any time.

You're mistaken about gun violence in the UK.

You don't care about gun safety or preventing accidents, only about getting rid of guns.

Anyway, I would be very happy to see all the automatic and semiautomatic guns replaced with single-shot pistols. Especially the kind that tend to blow up in the shooter's face.

That's a "keeper".

If gun-toting criminals had no reasonable expectation that their guns would not jam or explode instead of firing, that would make me happy. You guys talk a lot about motive. Does it not register what that would probably do to the motive to carry and use a gun?

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

Please come back another time and talk to me about civil discourse. So I can have a good laugh.

Here's you with your perfectly legal gun, wanting to shoot at targets or ducks or clay pigeons. And here's some nut who wants to shoot up a Luby's. Now, if he doesn't dare try it because a) his gun is likely to blow up and b) it only fires one shot anyway, after which he will definitely be overpowered and handed over the the police, then I'm happy. I assume you're too smart to shoot at targets, ducks, etc. with a dangerous gun, so you'll have to let them go unshot. I'm sorry about you and your targets and your ducks, but not very sorry. I'm too busy being happy for all the nice people at the Luby's who didn't get shot. I think they're more important than your hobby. If that makes me a hater, so be it. I'm a hobbyist myself, and if any of my hobbies was contributory to tens of thousands of Americans being killed every year, I'd drop that hobby like a red-hot anvil.

FYI, the first time I voted was in the 1976 election, for Carter. But you didn't really need that pint of Guinness anyway.

I don't care how many ILLEGAL guns are on the streets. Only criminals have them. The criminals in FL have guns too, even more.
The only difference I see is that LAW ABIDING people there don't have guns.
If Virginia is such a nice place for the criminals why they don't prey on Virginians, instead of walking all the way to the big city?

Crime tends to concentrate in big cities. Surely you're aware of that.

Now please explain why there are much bigger cities but the criminals prefer Washington DC?

They don't necessarily prefer D.C. but once the people elect them they are expected to go there because that is where the White House is. :)

No crime, or no gun crime, in NYC, LA, Chicago, Houston, etc.? My goodness, that's news to me!

...is there anything else your overlords at the Nuts Ruining America told you to say?????

:-)

Well, isn't that what a lot of people would consider to be just desserts for this kind of paedophile?

One does hope that there was a responsible adult actually driving that car full of children.

I didn't know trying to get a date had become so hard! Sure I struck out from time to time in my youth, but never shot for trying. I guess our society continues to decay.

their leaders have a habit of shooting people.

As I've already posted -- no woman shot anyone in this tale.

The man was shot by another man, in a different car from the car the women were in.

So someone's bit of, um, hyperbole seems to have fallen awfully flat.

I do hope that Wonk wasn't intentionally concealing this rather pertinent fact in posting the story. Perhaps it was just thought that anyone planning to comment would actually read what s/he was commenting on.

That being plainly an unrealistic expectation, I shall resign myself to politely but firmly correcting all the uninformed musings of everyone who didn't bother to read the story itself ...

The article was so short, and your header so tantalizing ... but instead of piquing interest as one might have expected, it jerked knees.