GOOD JOB DONE

nightjar

Executive Member
Joined
Aug 2, 2008
Messages
6,859
Reaction score
5,570
Location
Cape Town
Petite clerk shoots, kills 250-pound hotel robber

A small woman in her 50s working as a hotel clerk at a Columbia-area Days Inn shot and killed a robber "more than double her size" Monday morning, Richland County Sheriff Leon Lott said.

The suspect, Vincent Carson, 43, of Orangeburg, had held a knife to her throat, put the knife down and was apparently going to tie her up and sexually assault her, Lott said. "He was a career criminal on a crime spree and would not have stopped except for what happened this morning," Lott said.

The woman had been the victim of a prior robbery and had gotten permission from her hotel supervisor to carry a concealed pistol, Lott said. "She did not have a concealed-weapons permit, but you don't need one on private property where you have permission," he said. The clerk was preparing the hotel's breakfast about 6 a.m. when the attack happened at the Days Inn at 133 Plumbers Road.

Full article at;
http://www.postandcourier.com/news/2011/jul/26/petite-clerk-shoots-kills-250-pound-hotel-robber/


Naturally the idiots at GUN FREE SOUTH AFRICA would have preferred to see her raped
 
Every criminal removed from the surface of this planet is a win for us law-abiding citizens. Well done on fighting back!
 
Still funny.

"You don't need a concealed weapons permit if the owner of the private property you are on has given you permission to have a concealed weapon" :/
 
Guns Don't kill people. People kill people.

Guns certainly increase the chances of death, considerably. Let's use this thread as an example: without a gun, would this woman have been able to defend herself? Nope, not at all. Therefore the gun was the differentiating factor.

I'm not advocating harsh gun control, I'm merely pointing out the illogical nature of this argument that seems to be rather popular...
 
Guns certainly increase the chances of death, considerably. Let's use this thread as an example: without a gun, would this woman have been able to defend herself? Nope, not at all. Therefore the gun was the differentiating factor.

I'm not advocating harsh gun control, I'm merely pointing out the illogical nature of this argument that seems to be rather popular...

Oh come on man...you're smarter than that.
 
Oh come on man...you're smarter than that.

You give me too much credit. :p

Like I said, I'm not a gun control nut, but the statement that guns don't kill people, people do is a weak argument, logically...
 
Guns Don't kill people. People kill people.

Actually the bullets do :p:D

Guns certainly increase the chances of death, considerably. Let's use this thread as an example: without a gun, would this woman have been able to defend herself? Nope, not at all. Therefore the gun was the differentiating factor.

I'm not advocating harsh gun control, I'm merely pointing out the illogical nature of this argument that seems to be rather popular...

Yes most criminals adhere to the gun laws...

I am not saying give away guns at petrol stations... but the fact is in a country like SA where the "baddies" are armed and out to kill, and the policing force is not effective enough, self defence is a possible way to stay alive. And no thank you I do not want to be pointing my pepperspray at a robber with an AK-47 thank you.

I agree with Chris Rock. Make bullets R10 000 one :p
 
Last edited:
This whole argument of who or what is responsible for the action of killing is rediculous. She would have used what ever was at her disposal that she could have used to neutralise the threat, be it a gun, stapler, knife, etc. Sure, the use of a gun is some what more effective than other potential weapons but that doesnt change that the firearm was just a tool in the action. Would people be arguing "people dont kill people, blunt heavy objects do" if she had bludgeoned him to death?
 
Top
Sign up to the MyBroadband newsletter
X