There is NO excuse for a minor to be in unsupervised possession of a handgun. Whomever the gun belongs to, (assuming it wasn’t obtained from a criminal element) is ultimately responsible for it’s misuse. I, as a responsible gun owner, NEVER leave my guns where they can be accessed by my kids or anyone else for that matter. They are either on my person, concealed carry, or in my very large, very secure safe. If I, as a gun owner, do not maintain proper security of my firearms, I am responsible for what happens with them. If they somehow were lost or stolen, then they would be properly reported as such. If you can get past my locked door, my dog, my alarm system and into my safe before the police arrive, more power to you. I have a 13 year old daughter. This hits home.
Bullpucky!! Even by your own standards if someone steals your weapons from your house and kills someone you are still “responsible” for the murder! Remember “no excuse” perhaps you should have welded them to the inside of the safe so NO ONE could use them?
Guess what? My grandfather was raised in a house where guns were out in the open, no one killed! My father was raised in a house with guns out in the open, no one killed! I was raised in a house with guns out in the open, no one killed! My 6 kids were raised in a house with guns out in the open, no one killed! All my neighbors and friends were raised in houses for as far back as anyone can remember and no one accidentally killed!
Over hundreds of years and hundreds of people and hundreds of guns being out in the open and not one accidental death, not one person murdered by anyone I have ever personally knew or even remotely knew or heard about that was brought up in the lifestyle that we live committed a crime with a gun so I would argue your ideas!
We were brought up from day one understanding that firearms are lethal and understood what lethal meant. We were brought up understanding that we are responsible for our own actions too. Perhaps that is the problem, no morality and no personal responsibility.
After raising all my kids and knowing how long it takes the police to actually respond to a crime I hope your 13 year old daughter has time to get through your security measures to stop a burglar or rapist or
October 8, 2012 at 1:24pm
To all who are reading this story, please understand: They are NOT talking about your general purpose laser pointer used in classrooms and such. They are talking about lasers powerful enough to start clothing/paper on fire from significant distances. Just look up “Wicked Lasers” on google and you’ll begin to see the problem. They are selling these things to just anybody and that means that they are selling them to morons. These lasers have a visible beam in clear air for MILES. They cause eye damage in mere seconds. These things are no joke and the people using them to irritate pilots are either too stupid to realize the danger they’re creating or they are actually trying to disable the pilots. Either way, this is a crime. http://www.wickedlasers.com/arctic
They had to add a magnifying glass to pop the ballons. That would work with sunlight too, you dont need a laser pointer for that, just a magnifying glass and sunlight. I find it hard to believe a laser pointer will blind a pilot at 37,000 feet or that someone on the ground can actually hit a pilot in the eye when the cockpit is on the top of the plane are they saying people are bouncing thelaser off the moon back down on them? Lol.
This is just yet another waste of time for FBI and people getting jail time when real criminals are freed!
May 31, 2012 at 2:25pm
A cop, in the store, witnessing this crime would NOT have had a justification to shoot, based on the information given in this article. The whole point of having and using a gun is for defense of self. If defense of property using a gun is illegal in his state, then he is guilty of assault with a deadly weapon, minimum, and attempted murder maximum. Sucks, but, you can’t shoot someone in this case unless they directly threaten your life. Take measures to secure the inventory, lock up the booze, whatever, but you can’t just shoot at people, regardless of the fact that they keep shoplifting. Flash mobs do this too. Does this mean we just start firing into a group of people for shoplifting? There is a HUGE difference between being “robbed” by someone blatantly walking out with your merchandise under your nose, and being actually robbed at gun or knife-point. Just my .02 cents worth.
Exactly correct. It's shocking how little people actually know of the laws they live under. As you said, even a cop couldn't have cleared leather in this situation without losing his job.
Stealing possessions is an assault on one's person as much as being attacked physically. This business is part of their blood and sweat...it is their life. You have just as much ripped off their arm!!
Anyone who does that should be shot!
To bad he missed........the back of his head that is, there is no lower form of life than a thief.kill them like rats.
Regardless of state law.. the laws of man should apply, and do apply in my life. If you attempt, or actually do steal from me, I will shoot you. We will let a jury figure it out. You sir, can protect your small balls, and cower, and in the moment of decision, it ultimately will not be yours, and youlll be at the mercy of whatever bad man is there to do you harm.
Sorry, but the law does not agree with you in most states. I'm not arguing my opinion, I'm stating the facts of the law. You don't have to like the facts of the law (and, for the record, I'm not fond of them myself), but facts are facts.
Crazyrightwingmom - your name is correct, you are crazy. let me ask you this...if you owned a tore and a 15 year old kid came in and shoplifted a candy bar, you would feel fine with yourself for shooting and killing him? I think you are much closer to the middle eastern countries than you are to western laws. maybe you should move to suadi arabia....never mind they arent as crazy as you, they just lop off hands. I guess your wet dream is taliban ruled afghanistan? i hear its lovely this time of year.
Wow! Reading some of these replied, the right wings here are very obviously devolving. Punishment for stealing a case of beer should be death? How about stealing a can of beer? A candy bar? How about 1 kernel of popcorn?
HCARTEXAS - Ill ask you the same question - if a 15 year old kid(actually lets make him and 18 year old adult) steals a candy bar from you, you would shoot him in the head as he ran away? You wouldnt feel that was maybe just a little bit of an overreaction?
How about someone who steals and gets away with it for a period of time? Do you go out and hunt them? How about someone breaking electronically into your bank account? Do you go out and hunt them as well? How about a crooked employer who would short you a bit on a paycheck? Do you kill him/her, too? What about someone who writes you a check and it bounces? Death for them?
People are becoming crazy! I used to think it was the left that were getting more and more radical, but this forum is proof that it's on both sides!
Is it not a fact that the shop owner thought the theif was armed?
It doesn't even matter if he thought he was or not. Read the story.
"“After, after he got the beer he just ran out the store. That’s when this cashier decided to shoot at him,” Lodi Police Officer Jim Pendergast told the local CBS station."
He was shot at AFTER HE RAN OUT OF THE STORE. There is, by that statement, NO legal claim of self defense that can be offered. It was a statement to the police. The owner is in deep doo doo. I should have picked up on that sooner.
Don't take this as sympathy for the thief, he should be brought to trial himself. But there is no longer a claim of self defense that can stand up in court. He made a very, very bad mistake in shooting at the guy after he fled the premises.
Then the laws need to be changed.
That's why I voted "No, but I can see why he was". He shouldn't have been arrested and anyone with common sense can see he was defending his property. Problem is this is California, where common sense is sadly lacking. If you're a gun owner, you need to know your states laws.
Yuuup! Once a few flash mobs (emphasis on MOBS) lose a member or two, the rest of them will stop robbing, beating and killing people. If I were confronted by a person (or persons) with guns, sticks, knives, bottles, or any other weapon, it's "unload the magazine" into the mob and whoever survives gets to live and be prosecuted. I will live and be a witness against them at their trials. The rest will face their Maker. They won't be able to lie or get help from the cops when St. Peter tells them they are waiting in the wrong line.
Bingo. Here we get into the debate of what's legal vs what's reasonable. Should the store owner have shot the thief? According to state law, the answer is no. According to a frustrated store owner's own rationale and common sense, the answer is yes. In my state, I have the right to shoot and kill anyone that seeks to take my life or property. That said, you better be darn sure of what you're doing when you play judge and jury with a bullet.
GHOST, I have to agree with you and GRFD703. There was no reason in this case to fire at this perpetrator. I can see where the store owner and his wife had to be so frustrated with the previous robberies and especially those where they must have had a gun in their faces. Also, the frustrations of many posting here who put up with one news story after another regarding such crimes and many ending with the death or injury of the store clerk. But again, this should have not lead to this particular shooting.
Great point about how this conversation is being played out on two different levels. Both sides are right - emotionally, most people would WANT to shoot someone who is stealing from them - HOWEVER, it is completely illegal to do so unless that person's (or another person's) life is threatened.
You stated that in your state it is legal to shoot someone if they are stealing your property - what state is that? Honestly, the well established common law (as well as statutory law) is that one may NEVER use deadly force to protect property.
Legally you are right Jefferson, but if enough 'mere' property is stolen, a person will be reduced to the soup kitchen/food stamps & homeless shelter/section 8 housing. Only so much property can be
stolen before someone goes in the red financially.
To charge the shop owner & not the thief is selective justice, both committed crimes. If the shop owners have the preponderance of risk, violence or legal, in any confrontation the thieves are going to get more brazen.
All I can see is that the police did not charge him so they could a save public resources. They figure the military is going to charge him or get rid of him. Of course that could back fire. Often times the ex-service member doesn't go home but stays in the community, which helps the local crimes stats greatly.
"Regardless of state law.. the laws of man should apply, and do apply in my life. If you attempt, or actually do steal from me, I will shoot you"
Ummm no, not a good ideal. Looking them up later might be a good ideal.
I guess you blithely put people between a rock & a hard place. You're okay with the police not pursuing a criminal or the shop owner protecting his property.
Have you owned a retail outlet?
Yes, I have and I do. I have also been stolen from. I have also stopped theft from happening. However, I would NEVER think of taking a life due to theft from me. That is not to say I would allow it, and I would take whatever action I needed to in order to stop it, but I would not shoot someone for simple petty theft.
I believe thieves should be arrested and prosecuted, and if repeat violations occur, then they should be put away, but again, I don't believe we need to be their executioners, and I don't believe my God would want us to be either.
The very comments on this article is so much ammo for the anti-gun types, the anti-tea party types, the anti-right types. People here are proving how radical and crazy some of the right can be and that is sad ... we give the progressives ammo to use against us. And then we wonder why the progressives have achieved so much and risen so far.
"Should the store owner have shot the thief? According to state law, the answer is no. According to a frustrated store owner’s own rationale and common sense, the answer is yes."
According to the gospels of Jesus, the answer is no. That is what I will base my answer from.
JRHUSKY - nothing has turned me off of the right more than being on this and other right wing sites. Im a capitalist, i love the free market and I love freedom...i believe in small government and allowing people to live the way they want. Unofrtunatly, Ive become to realize that the extreme right wing is taking over. From any story that has a black person in it, to any story with gays, to any religious article, the extreme right dominates and the sane people on the right (like yourself) are overshadowed. If people were more sane, approached things reasonably, i dont see how any democrat would ever win office again. But with so many nutty opinion and views that dominate sites like this, I have nowhere to turn.
That is why I had to move over to the libertarian side of the force. I couldn't align myself with the Republican movement.
Keep your two cents worth. In Texas we can protect life and property. That's why I live here and the liberals can all move to Lodi.
I agree with your assessment ... reading this blog and some of the other right wing blogs have shown me how degenerate the right has become ... they're just as bad as the progressive left, just on the opposite side. I, too, am leaning libertarian because I don't want to be associated with these types who really want the same thing as the animals in the middle eastern countries do but cannot see the parallel due to their eyes being so fogged in hate.
If you think about it, these sort of blogs are perfect ammunition for the progressive left to show how crazy the right wing has become and they have apparently convinced a large amount of people of that. The truly unfortunate fact is those rabid right crazies here will, instead of being adult and mature enough to take a step back and view how their posts look to a middle-of-the-road thinking person, attack me for pointing out their obvious hatred.
I appreciate you answer. I am trying to teach my kid not to be rash like this store owner was. Although on a jury I would be extremely tempted to attempt jury nullification.
I checked out 2 of the 3 linked stories. Apparently the store owners don't have $5,000 top pay a bail bondsman to come up with bail money. Either they don't have the money, don't want to spend it, need it for the lawyer, or the wife doesn't want to pay.
I also thought of all the money the state collects on sin tax on cigarettes & alcohol & yet they have no risk & do not have to work that hard for it.
A gun is cheaper but a good camera system could make a person's life heII. Show a surveillence tape enough & a thief will lose his freedom to walk around.
This may surprise you.....
Texas Penal Code section 9.42- Deadly force to protect property
§ 9.42. DEADLY FORCE TO PROTECT PROPERTY. A person is
justified in using deadly force against another to protect land or
tangible, movable property:
(1) if he would be justified in using force against the
other under Section 9.41 (Protection Of One's Own Property http://law.onecle.com/texas/penal/9.41.00.html); and
(2) when and to the degree he reasonably believes the
deadly force is immediately necessary:
(A) to prevent the other's imminent commission of
arson, burglary, robbery, aggravated robbery, theft during the
nighttime, or criminal mischief during the nighttime; or
(B) to prevent the other who is fleeing
immediately after committing burglary, robbery, aggravated
robbery, or theft during the nighttime from escaping with the
(3) he reasonably believes that:
(A) the land or property cannot be protected or
recovered by any other means; or
(B) the use of force other than deadly force to
protect or recover the land or property would expose the actor or
another to a substantial risk of death or serious bodily injury.
"Yes, I have and I do. I have also been stolen from. I have also stopped theft from happening."
You look like a big guy. You being red headed I bet you are. If you were 5'6" or smaller & not as stocky, stopping someone without a gun would be more problematic I think. I can see the thief winning money in civil court. Using a gun was not the correct answer in this case. But this store owner has been held up at gun point at least once. How many people have had that happen to them?
In this case I really think good cameras are a better answer & getting the surveillance tape ran on the nightly news.
Actually, my hair is brown, but that's OK :)
I am a bit over 6 foot. However, size is not everything. My wife whom is only 5'6" can take out most people, not due to her size, but due to different fighting arts she knows. One don't have to be "big" to protect ones own.
In this case, if it ever gets to a jury, the jury needs to nullify the charges.
Wow! That does surprise me. I went to law school in Florida and practice in Arizona, and never heard of a statute that allows deadly force to protect property - but hey - leave it to Texas! :) Thanks for the info!
@JHRUSKY and dose of reality, Let me get this straight. So basically, you all are trying to say that there is a dollar limit to theft at which point it becomes okay or not okay to shoot a thief? Is that really the point you want to be making? So what if someone is stealing my car? Is it okay to shoot them for that? The reality of the situation is that theft is theft is theft. Dollar amount doesn't matter. If you steal pack of gum or a case of beer or you rob a house of every piece of property with anything but sentimental value; you are a thief any way that you go. Now, that said, there is a difference between a real child (hasn't even reached puberty yet) stealing from you and an adult. One would hope that a child who has through no fault of their own, pulled the short straw in the parental guidance area can be granted a second chance. But any adult or teen who acts like an adult should be extremely aware that they can be shot on sight for theft or trespass. Them's the rules. IF you don't like'em; tough shitzky.
I'm sure all of you who are crying like the most leftist of lefties would just let the guy come into your home, take your television set and casually walk out.
Glad to know that I can casually walk into your homes unarmed and just take what I want of YOUR property and not have to worry about getting shot.
"So basically, you all are trying to say that there is a dollar limit to theft at which point it becomes okay or not okay to shoot a thief?"
No ... not sure where you got that idea, but you apparently wanted to read that into the posts here for some reason. Perhaps so you could setup a strawman that even you are able to knock down?
"But any adult or teen who acts like an adult should be extremely aware that they can be shot on sight for theft or trespass. Them’s the rules. IF you don‘t like’em; tough shitzky."
Apparently them's not the rules [sic]. If they were, the store owner wouldn't be in jail.
And to all the other nimrods here who are equating my stance against attempted murder for petty theft, I've never once said it was OK to come into my home or store to steal something. Try it and see what pain it can cause on your body. I won't shoot you, but I guarantee you will not be smiling.
SGTB - I wouldnt kill somoen over stealing my car. If my car was parked on the street and I came around the corner and saw someone stealing it, no I would not whip out a gun and shoot them. I have insurance, we have a police force...I might try to physically stop them, but is my incsured car worth it? I mean seriously, you guys are defending capital punishment for petty theft....do you know how insane that is? This is the stuff that the strictest sharia dominated countries dont even do....whats wrong with you?
May 15, 2012 at 2:53pm
FATJACK: Be careful what you have your wife carrying. Our wonderful federal gov. has made it a crime to use wasp spray for personal defense. The label clearly states, ” It is a violation of Federal law to use this product in a manner inconsistent with it’s labeling.” So clearly, wasp spray is for deterring pests….wait a minute… pests…hmmm. I guess these thugs qualify! Nevermind!
April 12, 2012 at 2:08pm
Please understand – My comments are my view of the world as I see it. Not as I wish it. I, like another person on this blog, forgive her for what she said. (I’m a Christian, and a lifelong follower of Jesus Christ). I’m not an idiot however, and therefore, while I forgive her, I will never FORGET what she said.
April 12, 2012 at 1:44pm
I really don’t think the BPP and their ilk truly understand the enormous disadvantage they would have, should a true “race war” actually come to pass. There are around 300 million guns floating around in this country. The majority of them are NOT handguns. The majority of them are in the hands of VERY well regulated (practiced) deer/elk/moose/caribou/duck/squirrel/rabbit/ hunters. These people are very skilled in the art of camouflage, survival, (camping anyone?) fishing, (ok, we’re on probably equal footing on that one). My point is that the 13% minority would fare BADLY against the white, redneck majority who are quite accustomed to killing very large animals. It’s not too much of a stretch to apply skills learned over a lifetime of hunting to a “race war” survival situation. Actually, it would last more than a couple of weeks in my opinion. I know a LOT of guys that would actually LOVE for this to come to pass. (I’m not one of them). I’m just stating facts. People who run in MY circle of friends are EXTREMELY well armed and EXTREMELY well equipped to handle a “civil uprising” situation. Let’s not push it.
As for me, apology not accepted. You spoke what was in your heart and got busted.
Before the Blaze pulls your comment I'd like to say: ugly but true. A race war would end badly and would really be a waste. If you look at the Neo-nazis and the New Black Panthers they're the same people with different pigment.
Please understand - My comments are my view of the world as I see it. Not as I wish it. I, like another person on this blog, forgive her for what she said. (I'm a Christian, and a lifelong follower of Jesus Christ). I'm not an idiot however, and therefore, while I forgive her, I will never FORGET what she said.
December 1, 2011 at 5:26pm
The current statistical estimate of annual PREVENTED crimes is approximately 2 million. That’s 2 million instances of crime thwarted simply because of the presence of a gun. The bad guy decided it wasn’t worth it and walked away. I’ve been carrying for 15 years, and I’ve had to present my handgun 4 times in that 15 years. In every case, the would-be perpetrator turned his ass around and walked away quickly. I never have reported these encounters to police, and I would imagine there are many, many more out there who have had the same experience. Now, there are some of you self-defense purists out there who would fault me for “brandishing” without firing. To them I would say that I don’t follow the purist attitude that if you have to clear leather, someone has to die. I’m extremely happy with the outcomes of my 4 incidents. It seems extremely plausible to me that the 2 million crimes that didn’t happen per year is accurate.
October 24, 2011 at 10:48am
RANGERP is absolutely right. I put over 40 deer in the freezer in the last 15 years, and I’ve NEVER mistaken one for anything else. As a hunter, you MUST identify your target 100% prior to pulling the trigger. You MUST take an ethical shot in the proper “kill zone” on the animal to prevent undue suffering and pain to the animal. If you’re one of those so-called hunters out there, and you know who you are, that are only interested in the trophy aspect of your target, and must, at any cost bag that animal, then you are the problem. I’ve known people who take shots at moving brush, sounds in the woods, anything moving period. I refuse to hunt with, near, or around people like this. I’ve missed opportunities many times because I couldn’t properly identify a target and let them walk. In my state, even shooting the wrong classification of deer can get you into hot water. Mistake a button buck for a doe? Oh, well, you’re screwed. Shoot a 4 point (fork horn) in a 3 point rule area? Oh well, you’re screwed. There’s a lot more to hunting than simply shooting at an animal. It takes intelligence and discrimination to properly hunt. Idiots!!!
October 17, 2011 at 10:22am
Trust God in every other area of your life except for your finances and you expect him to bless you? Read the following:
Malachi 3:8-11 “Will a man rob God? Yet you have robbed Me! But you say, In what way have we robbed You? In tithes and offerings.
(9) You are cursed with a curse, For you have robbed Me, Even this whole nation.
(10) Bring all the tithes into the storehouse, That there may be food in My house, And try Me now in this, Says the LORD of hosts, If I will not open for you the windows of heaven And pour out for you such blessing That there will not be room enough to receive it.
(11) And I will rebuke the devourer for your sakes, So that he will not destroy the fruit of your ground, Nor shall the vine fail to bear fruit for you in the field, Says the LORD of hosts;”
I love the "try me now in this" part of this verse....the only time in the Holy Bible that G-d says "test me". It works....I have seen it from both sides.
October 17, 2011 at 10:17am
By not tithing, you are refusing to be obedient to God. You are literally saying to God, “I have faith and trust You in every other area of my life except for my finances. I think I’ll handle this area myself.” How do you expect God to bless you financially, if you are defying him? This is why you struggle.
October 17, 2011 at 9:54am
Ok, let’s try this again… (I left out “and to the republic” the first time)
Yo hago juramento a la bandera de los Estados Unidos de America, y a la republica a quien representa. Una nacion, bajo Dios, indivisible, con libertad y justicia para todos.
October 17, 2011 at 9:46am
When I was in Spanish class back in the eighties, we were required to learn the US pledge of allegiance in Spanish. Very different, and still meets the intent.
Yo hago juramento a la bandera de los Estados Unidos de America, y a la quien representa. Una nacion, bajo Dios, indivisible, con libertad y justicia para todos.
October 14, 2011 at 11:52am
JROOK: Your analogy was based on the movie,”The American President” and here’s the direct quote:
They don’t have a choice! Bob
Rumson’s the only one doing the
talking. People want leadership.
And in the absence of genuine
leadership, they will listen to
anyone who steps up to the
microphone. They want leadership,
Mr. President. They’re so thirsty
for it, they’ll crawl through the
desert toward a mirage, and when
they discover there’s no water,
they’ll drink the sand.
Lewis, we’ve had Presidents who were
beloved, who couldn’t find a coherent
sentence with two hands and a
flashlight. People don’t drink the
sand, ’cause they’re thirsty, Lewis.
They drink it ’cause they don’t know
October 12, 2011 at 10:47am
As much as I agree with you, you Ron Paul fanatics are going to have to get it through your thick skulls – Ron Paul is not electable. The reasons are hard to quantify, other than to say that, because of MASSIVE brainwashing in our public education system over the past 50 years, ideas that Ron Paul puts forward, while spot-on, are now considered by “mainstream” Americans as bizarre and extreme right wing. I agree wholeheartedly with Ron Paul and his positions, which make me, perhaps, just as bizarre and extreme right wing. Bottom line – like it or not, the reality is that Ron Paul is not electable. Waste your vote on him or vote for Cain (if he gets the nomination). My fear is that the RINO Romney will get the nomination. He will be better than Obama by leaps and bounds regardless.
September 26, 2011 at 9:52am
Rest assured, the people perpetrating these crimes are choosing very carefully who they mess with. They always escalate the incident once it becomes clear they’re dealing with one of the “sheeple” who aren’t normally in a position to excercise their 2nd amendment rights. They prey on the weak and run in packs. One of these days, these ass-clowns are going to bite off WAY more than they can chew and when the smoke clears…. well, I hate it for them.
September 21, 2011 at 1:20pm
It’s “lose” not “loose”. Is anyone else tired of seeing this grammatical error?
August 29, 2011 at 12:27pm
Warning other drivers of a hazard ahead should not be a crime, and in most states isn’t a crime, even if misinformed police ticket for it. A speed trap may not be a physical hazard, but it most certainly is a financial hazard to the drivers on the road. The flashing of headlights has a three-fold effect. 1. It causes people to slow down if they understand the signal. (increasing safety). 2. It warns the other drivers that an officer is operating ahead. (increases the officers safety, due to awareness of his presence and possible need to change lanes). 3. Gives drivers the opportunity to avoid the financial hazard presented by the officer. The police departments that have a problem with this behavior are most likely engaged in revenue generating speed trap activity as their primary purpose, and not the so-called purpose of “ensuring public safety through speed enforcement”.
July 7, 2011 at 6:18pm
Actually, if she leads a repentant life from here on out, and accepts Him as her Lord and Savior, then yes, he WILL (actually already has) forgive her, for it is only through GRACE than any of us are forgiven, for none of us deserves it. None of us.
Matthew 7: 1Judge not, that ye be not judged.
2For with what judgment ye judge, ye shall be judged: and with what measure ye mete, it shall be measured to you again.
July 7, 2011 at 5:20pm
Ok, so if you notice, in the story about the crowd in Illinois, the police and firefighters had to retreat, fearing for their safety. This is a prime example of the power of the people who are armed. In this case, it was only fireworks. Albeit, some of the newer mortar style shells can inflict serious damage and probably even kill, these fireworks are NOTHING compared to a “well regulated militia”, aka, a well armed and practiced populace. I don’t agree with the actions of these morons, but it does make one step back and ponder what it would/will be like should our government decide to ban guns. Just a thought.
May 26, 2011 at 2:29pm
To those of you who excoriate the president for being somewhere else during this horrible tragedy I say this: First of all, I’m no fan of Obama, at ALL, but being a 20 year veteran fireman, I can tell you that the LAST thing you want at a scene like this is the freaking president showing up. From experience, the first thing that happens when the president shows up is that they make EVERYBODY stop moving. No foot traffic, no vehicles moving, no chainsaws running… nothing. This actually hampers the rescue and clean up efforts for as long as the nitwit is on scene which can be up to a couple of hours. Trust me when I tell you that he’s better off being off somewhere else and out of the way of the people who can actually help these people directly. It’s not like he’s going to pick up a shovel or a chainsaw and start working. Let him do his job of declaring the town a federal disaster area, and perhaps give a heartfelt speech of condolence from afar. If he must visit, make it in a location AWAY from the actual damage path where people are still moving about normally. They’ll all have to stop moving too, but at least all that will have been interrupted will be somewhat normal movement and not search, rescue and clean up movement. Just my .02 cents worth.