From the Harford County Sheriff’s Office:
On Monday, March 19, 2012 at approximately 4:15 pm Harford County Sheriff’s Office deputies responded to a call for service regarding a shooting that occurred in the 1700 block of Fountain Rock Way in Edgewood MD. The victim, Emmanuel Obguli, 22 year old male, of the 1800 block of Eloise Lane in Edgewood was shot in the torso after a physical and verbal altercation involving several individuals including the suspect.
The victim, Obguli, was transported to the University of Maryland R. Adams Cowley Shock Trauma Center by Maryland State Police Trooper 1. As of March 20, 2012, the victim was listed to be in serious but stable condition.
Anyone with additional information regarding the shooting is encouraged to contact Detective Chris Sergent of the Criminal Investigation Division at 410-836-5428.
An arrest warrant for attempted 1st degree murder has been issued for Neal Aaron Turner, age 27, of 1800 block of Brookside Drive in Edgewood, MD in connection with the shooting. Anyone with information on the whereabouts of Turner is encouraged to contact Harford County Sheriff’s Office.
Anyone with information regarding the crime wishing to remain anonymous may report their information through the following methods listed below. Qualifying tips that lead to a conviction may be eligible for up to $2,000 in rewards.
Website/Email: Submit a tip online at http://www.harfordsheriff.org/wanted
Text message: MetroCrime Stoppers: Text “CRIMES” (274637)
Begin the message “MCS,” then add the information.
Phone: Harford Crime Solvers: Call 1-888-540-8477
Looks like a fine upstanding citizen to me
It looks like the sheriff’s office already him in custody since they managed to get a photo of him….I mean….I’m SURE this was his first offense….right?
I thought MD gun control laws were implemented to stop thugs from getting weapons?…..Oh, that’s right….it’s actually meant to keep law-abiding citizens from possessing them…..silly me.
Yes law-abiding citizens like Neal Turner.
Ok….I’ll bite….
What’s your point?
Obviously there are many people (who are NOT criminals) who have access to weapons who should not have access to them. It is too easy for people to buy and own weapons. The Va Tech shooter legally owned the weapons he used to kill so many kids. It should be MORE difficult for anyone to purchase a weapon. There should be extensive psychological tests to determine if prospective gun owners are the type to use a weapon in anger (which would have prevented the Va Tech shooter from owning weapons).
Yep….MORE regulations will CERTAINLY keep any nut-job from getting his/her hands on a weapon if they really want one. You’ve really nailed it! Nicely done.
Proud,
Unfortunately for your position, the Supreme Court of the United States declared that handgun ownership is a fundamental civil right for law-abiding citizens in McDonald v Chicago. Mental health evaluations aren’t allowed before issuing demonstration permits, nor would they be accepted before purchasing a firearm.
or George Zimmerman.
What does Zimmerman have to do with Maryland gun control laws? In any case, he has nothing to with some POS gangbanger shooting someone during/after a fight.
I think “stand your ground” laws are a good thing, but they shouldn’t apply to public places like the street or sidewalk. They should apply to your own home and property (or if you’re visiting a friend’s or relative’s home and they aren’t trying to kick you out) and possibly a business that you own or work for.
Pizzle,
Nothing will deter PTBL from the belief that enough laws will prevent acts of violence. PTBL believes that gangbangers selling firearms out of a trunk of a car will have this flash of civic responsibility and legitimize their business if we put enough laws and psychological tests on the books to legally purchase a firearm.
I’ve beaten this path with PTBL several times… nothing said can stand in the way of circular thinking.
Ok – a little homework for PTBL. Of the near 300 murders that occur in the City of Baltimore each year, how many were committed by people who used their LEGALLY purchased guns or were LEGAL holders of concealed carry permits? If you learn just one thing today PTBL, try to stick with this one…it ain’t the law abiding citizens committing these crimes and no matter what laws you dream up, the thugs will still commit their crimes!
It is a reality, that if you enacted a law that would prohibit regular law abiding citizens from owning a firearms, that the only people that would have firearms would be those citizens that were not law abiding. Even though I have agreed with PTBL on many prior occasions, I disagree with him on this point. No offense intended to PTBL.
Based on the time-stamps of your prodigious commentaries, you are either unemployed, or are committing fraud by misusing your employer’s computer resources during company time (to include computer, network bandwidth, firewall loading, AND loss of production). The aforementioned behavior, in conjunction with your apparent laziness and self righteousness, paints a composite of you as either the perfect hippy or a “yokel from cow country”, who’s “between jobs” and “between girlfriends”. (Are you Maryland’s version of Comic Book Guy?) I advise you… again, and for your own good … to :(1) unplug, (2) strive to make friends, (3) resolve to eat better and to exercise, (4) become functionally and technologically literate, and, most importantly, (5) find a spiritual foundation, preferably one with with God. (BTW, overwhelming scientific evidence indicates the presence of a metaphysical and divine force that created the universe, the laws of nature, and …man.)
Charlemagne: I find your pathetic attempts at humor sad. While David and I are often at odds, he deserves an honest reply and not your skanky remarks. Sorry Dave there are always these types stalking.
Bingo. When was the last time that Homeboy Gangbanger walked into a bonafide gun retailer, filled out the NCIC insta-check or do a proper FFL transfer.
Gun laws only benefit the criminals.
To all you gun loving folks: I have a question for you. Have you ever heard of straw buyers? Where do you think criminals get their guns, they don’t make them? They have to be bought somewhere. My guess is from some lax state such as Virginia that has almost no restrictions on weapons. The people from Arizona are always complaining about drug cartels. Where do they get their assault weapons: from Arizona. I just hope none of you are a victim of a gun crime as owning a gun will not help you. .
It may or it may not help us. However, not having one puts you at a decided disadvantage as you tell your potential assailant that “The police are on their way and they will be here in mere minutes – can you please wait before you kill me?” That was the scenario that the Mayor of DC used when interviewed by NPR over the overturning of his gun ban. As I listened, even the NPR interviewer seemed doubtful; I know I was.
Hey Proud,
“To all you gun loving folks: I have a question for you. Have you ever heard of straw buyers?” – Yes, and they should be punished just as the person that uses the illegal firearm to commit a crime.
“Where do you think criminals get their guns, they don’t make them?” – There are multiple ways for criminals to get firearms, including, but not limited to, buying them legally, stealing them, finding them, and purchasing them illegally.
“They have to be bought somewhere. My guess is from some lax state such as Virginia that has almost no restrictions on weapons.” – Yes, I would imaging some are obtained in this manner.
“The people from Arizona are always complaining about drug cartels. Where do they get their assault weapons: from Arizona.” – I would imagine some are obtained in Arizona, some might even be obtained legally; of course, some might be stolen, some might be bought from foreign countries, or other states, both legally and illegally.
“I just hope none of you are a victim of a gun crime as owning a gun will not help you.” – Actually, current data shows the opposite. Owning a firearm actually prevents crime and loss of life. According to Kopel, firearms expert and former assistant district attorney, “[W]hen a robbery victim does not defend himself, the robber succeeds 88 percent of the time, and the victim is injured 25 percent of the time. When a victim resists with a gun, the robbery success rate falls to 30 percent, and the victim injury rate falls to 17 percent.”
Here are a couple sources to check out:
http://www.wnd.com/2005/09/32103/
https://www.ncjrs.gov/txtfiles/165476.txt
Anyways, have a nice day.
Paul: These are not authorities, sorry: “Elder’s political views are philosophically libertarian, and have also been described as conservative.” “Evidence suggests that this survey and others like it overestimate the frequency with which firearms were used by private citizens to defend against criminal attack” You’ll have to better than this.
Hey Proud,
“Paul: These are not authorities,” – The NCJRS is not an authority?
“sorry: “Elder’s political views are philosophically libertarian, and have also been described as conservative.”” – The purpose of citing WND’s cite was to show that the Kellermann, the purpose credited with the figure that homes with guns are three times more likely to have a homicide, back-pedaled after his findings were discredited. Furthermore, in the WND cite, the Department of Justice is cited, as well as David Kopel.
““Evidence suggests that this survey and others like it overestimate the frequency with which firearms were used by private citizens to defend against criminal attack”” – What evidence suggests this, Proud? You have provided no cites, no authorities. You may not like Elder’s viewpoint, and I respect that. However, the information he provided is there. I particularly find Kleck’s information to be very revealing. Of course, I doubt you do, as your point of view regarding firearms is well known and I would think no matter what evidence is shown, you would never support it.
“You’ll have to better than this.” – Will I? I provided government cites, opinion cites which have other government cites in it. In the cites I provided, data is listed to support my my point of view. You have provided….umm…your personal opinion, nothing more. So, tell me again, who will need to do better?
Anyways, have a nice day.
Paul: ““Evidence suggests that this survey and others like it overestimate the frequency with which firearms were used by private citizens to defend against criminal attack”” – What evidence suggests this, Proud?”
If you read the report you would have found this quote in it.
Hey Proud,
“Paul: ““Evidence suggests that this survey and others like it overestimate the frequency with which firearms were used by private citizens to defend against criminal attack”” – What evidence suggests this, Proud?” If you read the report you would have found this quote in it.” – I read it. Also, I will admit there is evidence to suggest it is overestimated. However, that does not change the fact that it does occur, simply a matter of numbers. As stated in the article, the Crime Victimization Survey states 108,000 times a firearm was used, hard data of reported uses. The Kleck report suggests defensive gun uses of 2,500,000 times, while NSPOF states 1,500,000 defensive gun uses per year. So, the number is obviously somewhere between those numbers.
Now, combine this with the other data, “[W]hen a robbery victim does not defend himself, the robber succeeds 88 percent of the time, and the victim is injured 25 percent of the time. When a victim resists with a gun, the robbery success rate falls to 30 percent, and the victim injury rate falls to 17 percent. No other response to a robbery – from drawing a knife to shouting for help to fleeing – produces such low rates of victim injury and robbery success”. – it is clear that firearms are used for defensive purposes, and when used, they make it better for the victim of the violent crime.
Now, in 2010, there were roughly 15,000 murders, and roughly 1,250,000 violent crimes in the United States.
Also, I find it amusing that you can never admit when there is data, proof, or strong arguments against your point of view. You simply argue against the authorities I provide, without countering them, i might add. Please, offer some data to counter what I have stated. And, since you don’t seem to like a source that has any bias what-so-ever in it, provide a completely unbiased source. (A little hint here, there are NO completely unbiased sources)
Anyways, have a nice day.
Oh, and one more thing, Proud. Just because you disagree with them does not mean they are not authorities. They are. All authorities have a bias, no matter who they are. However, what matters is how reliable they are. The data contained is what it is.
Anyways, have a nice day.
More gun control laws won’t change either of those scenarios. What you’re talking about is already illegal.
Hi Proud,
Nice to touch on this topic again… Some clarification is in order yet again as well.
You said: “To all you gun loving folks: I have a question for you.”
Reply: I don’t love guns. I find them to be a constitutionally entitled tool to accomplish a degree of tasks – hunting, target shooting, and protection. These are all LEGAL activities.
You asked: “Have you ever heard of straw buyers?”
Reply: Yes. I’m not one of them. Yet another argument against law abiding folks used by the left to violate constitutional rights.
You asked: “Where do you think criminals get their guns, they don’t make them?”
Reply: Answered by others very capably.
You said: “They have to be bought somewhere. My guess is from some lax state such as Virginia that has almost no restrictions on weapons.”
Reply: Or stolen.
You said: “The people from Arizona are always complaining about drug cartels.”
Reply: They ought to, that activity is illegal.
You asked: “Where do they get their assault weapons: from Arizona.”
Reply: Some get them from the Obama Administration. You’ve heard of “Fast and Furious?”
You said: “I just hope none of you are a victim of a gun crime as owning a gun will not help you.”
Reply: I hope you are not either. In fact I’ll up the ante and hope you never get stabbed or beaten with a stick. As far as owning a gun preventing injury, you are right. That is why using the gun you own is important to prevent harm to you and your family.
And one fine day, if there is any justice in Maryland – and what a BIG ‘if’ that is – there will be fire arms regulations that are constitutional. Not the ones we have today which are decidedly unconstitutional. What a sad state of affairs when citizens have to go to extraordinary legal lengths and expense to force their government to obey the constitution.
Liberal Monster. You continue your ignorance toward society. Do you really think that criminals will not be able to get weapons? are you that blind? If a dirtbag wants a gun then a dirtbag will get a gun. If a dirtbag knows that they are in a concealed carry state well a dirtbag will think twice. Liberal Monster you are clueless.
As former Gov. Tawes would say: “When guns are outlawed, only outlaws will have guns.”
UPDATE:
Neal Turner of Edgewood was taken into custody without incident on Wednesday, March 21 in the Abingdon area. He was wanted in conjunction with the shooting that occurred on Monday, March 19 in the 1700 block of Fountain Rock Way in Edgewood. Turner is currently being held without bail at the Harford County Detention Center on charges for attempted 1st degree murder, 1st degree assault, and use of the firearm in commission of a felony violent crime.
To the NRA site: We have gone over this ad nausem and it is small comfort to the family of Trayvon Martin who was murdered by a self appointed bully vigilante bent on using his gun. It won’t be long before two such vigilantes, each with a legal concealed weapon, will have a gun fight “standing their ground.”
And when that happens, they will be violating existing laws. And if you took away their guns, they would just find a more difficult way to kill each other. A gun is a tool, nothing more. Used by a law abiding citizen in a responsible and safe way it is only a threat to anyone that chooses to be unlawful towards the person that wields it. I do not own a gun Proud, but I do not want the right taken away from me just because someone else feels I shouldn’t have one, no matter how noble their motive may be.
Dave: You people put words in my mouth to make your argument. I have never argued that guns should be disallowed. I merely want a meaningful check to assure us that unsuitable people do not get them. Think Zimmerman and Va. Tech.
What would have prevented Zimmerman from being able to get a CCW permit and purchase guns? I haven’t heard anything about him having a mental illness, etc. I also firmly believe that he was wrong and will ultimately end up in prison (and even if he doesn’t he will lose everything he owns in the inevitable civil lawsuit.)
I agree that the VA Tech shooter should not have been able to purchase guns, but I have feeling that nutjob would’ve managed to get some anyway even if he couldn’t have bought one legally. That’s also a prime example of why citizens SHOULD be allowed to legally carry a concealed weapon (with a CCW permit requiring a yearly firearm safety course and qualification course.) Had there been just one or two people other than the active shooter in that building who were armed there’s a very good chance many lives would’ve been saved…especially since he’d chained the doors shut so the police couldn’t get in quickly and no one could get out.
Hey Proud,
“Dave: You people put words in my mouth to make your argument. I have never argued that guns should be disallowed. I merely want a meaningful check to assure us that unsuitable people do not get them. Think Zimmerman and Va. Tech.” – I agree there should be checks, or to be more accurate, the checks out there should be used. I do think we would disagree on what a reasonable check is, however. To me, a reasonable check would be a federal/state background/mental history check at the time of purchase, with a 1 week waiting period.
I have a bit of a problem with your Zimmerman example, though. As more and more evidence arises, it seems that Zimmerman did nothing wrong. He has no criminal convictions, and does not appear to have any mental problems. He did get arrested, and did have an injunction on him, though the arrest appears to have been removed as he completed a first time offender program, and the domestic injunction was filed against him by his ex, and he filed one against his ex as well. Also, it appears that Mr. Trayvon Martin was the aggressor, attacked Mr. Zimmerman from behind, got on top of Mr. Zimmerman, and broke his nose; then Mr. Zimmerman was yelling for help and then Mr. Zimmerman shot Mr. Martin. It also appears Mr. Martin was much bigger than Mr. Zimmerman, unlike the original reports. Mr. Martin was 6’2″, 200 lbs.
Anyways, have a nice day.
Paul: “I have a bit of a problem with your Zimmerman example, though. As more and more evidence arises, it seems that Zimmerman did nothing wrong. He has no criminal convictions, and does not appear to have any mental problems. He did get arrested, and did have an injunction on him, though the arrest appears to have been removed as he completed a first time offender program, and the domestic injunction was filed against him by his ex, and he filed one against his ex as well. Also, it appears that Mr. Trayvon Martin was the aggressor, attacked Mr. Zimmerman from behind, got on top of Mr. Zimmerman, and broke his nose; then Mr. Zimmerman was yelling for help and then Mr. Zimmerman shot Mr. Martin. It also appears Mr. Martin was much bigger than Mr. Zimmerman, unlike the original reports. Mr. Martin was 6’2″, 200 lbs.”
Zimmerman was NOT part of an authorized Neighborhood Watch organization. He did NOT follow established protocol; he did NOT follow specific police orders. He called the boy a ‘fucking coon’ which establishes this as a hate crime to me. He was stalking Martin against specific police orders and that makes him the aggressor. (BTW I wear a hoody too and I am an old man.)
While Martin may have been 6’2”, he weighed in at 150 lbs. which makes him a gangly teen coming home from the candy store (one look at his picture belies your assertion and only Faux News would contradict this). But that is all beside the point; a neighborhood watch volunteer is NOT armed, is with a group, never approaches a person and ONLY calls the police. I feel Zimmerman was a bully vigilante bent on using his gun and this is the point: he had a gun and he should not have had it and because he did, and because of the moronic laws of Florida, a teenage boy is now dead who should be alive.
We agree on there “…should be checks, or to be more accurate, the checks out there should be used. I do think we would disagree on what a reasonable check is, however. To me, a reasonable check would be a federal/state background/mental history check at the time of purchase, with a 1 week waiting period.”
I replied to you but it is “awaiting moderation” which means it will never see the light of day and is typical with this site.
I’ll try again since this site seems to have a problem posting anything with a link attached.
“Guns increase the probability of death in incidents of domestic violence. Firearms were used to kill more than two-thirds of spouse and ex-spouse homicide victims between 1990 and 2005. Domestic violence assaults involving a firearm are 23 times more likely to result in death than those involving other weapons or bodily force. Abused women are five times more likely to be killed by their abuser if the abuser owns a firearm. A recent survey of female domestic violence shelter residents in California found that more than one third (36.7%) reported having been threatened or harmed with a firearm. In nearly two thirds (64.5%) of the households that contained a firearm, the intimate partner had used the firearm against the victim, usually threatening to shoot or kill the victim. Laws that prohibit the purchase of a firearm by a person subject to a domestic violence restraining order are associated with a reduction in the number of intimate partner homicides Between 1990 and 2005, individuals killed by current dating partners made up almost half of all spouse and current dating partner homicides. A study of applicants for domestic violence restraining orders in Los Angeles found that the most common relationship between the victim and abuser was a dating relationship, and applications for protective orders were more likely to mention firearms when the parties had not lived together and were not married.”
“The United States experiences epidemic levels of gun violence, claiming over 30,000 lives annually, according to the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. For every person who dies from a gunshot wound, two others are wounded. Every year, more than 100,000 Americans are victims of gun violence. In addition to those who are killed or injured, there are countless others whose lives are forever changed by the deaths of and injuries to their loved ones. “
“In 2007, guns took the lives of 31,224 Americans in homicides, suicides and unintentional shootings. This is the equivalent of more than 85 deaths each day and more than three deaths each hour.1
69,863 Americans were treated in hospital emergency department for non-fatal gunshot wounds in 2007.2 Firearms were the third-leading cause of injury-related deaths nationwide in 2007, following motor vehicle accidents and poisoning.3 Between 1955 and 1975, the Vietnam War killed over 58,000 American soldiers – less than the number of civilians killed with guns in the U.S. in an average two-year period.4 In the first seven years of the U.S.-Iraq War, over 4,400 American soldiers were killed. Almost as many civilians are killed with guns in the U.S., however, every seven weeks.”
Now we can go back and forth with dueling statistics all day long. The NRA site supporters will think what they want and I will think what I want. I’m done.
Hey Proud, your stats do NOT refute anything I said. Your initial argument was “I just hope none of you are a victim of a gun crime as owning a gun will not help you.” I responded with data arguing against that hypothesis. You have just replied three bits of data and sources off topic.
Your first new bit of information is that “guns increase the probability of death in incidents of domestic violence” – Now, this is arguable, but off topic. It does not address your initial argument, nor my response. If you would like to discuss this, we can, but lets start a new thread for this.
Your second latest source states, “The United States experiences epidemic levels of gun violence, claiming over 30,000 lives annually…” – Ok, good stat, however, again, this is completely off topic. If you want to argue this point, lets do so in another thread, but lets stick to your original point that “owning a gun will not help you.”
Your third latest statement is, “In 2007, guns took the lives of 31,224 Americans in homicides, suicides and unintentional shootings.” – Once again, you have failed to address your original argument and my reply. You are completely ignoring it. Isn’t what you are doing a red herring? Your data does not support your original argument. If you would care to further argue your “new” points, I will. However, I am waiting for any data or support for your original argument.
“Now we can go back and forth with dueling statistics all day long. The NRA site supporters will think what they want and I will think what I want. I’m done.” – We are not dueling statistics. I am providing sources to counter your original argument and you are going way off topic. And yes, you will think what you want, ignoring the facts and data, refusing to believe what is right in front of you, and continuing to go off topic. I will believe what the evidence proves. And with that, I am done. (For now, until you actually are capable of replying with a sound argument that is on topic and with reliable sources)
Anyways, have a nice day.
Paul,
I’ve gone many rounds with Proud on this topic – I am convinced nothing will change his/her mind. To Proud’s credit s/he seems genuinely concerned for the health and welfare of everyone. S/he believes merely owning a firearm will increase the risk of injury and/or death. Well, to be fair owning a firearm does increase the odds of being injured by said firearm in the absence of that firearm. In like fashion I could say “I never drive or ride in a car.” Logically the possibility of me getting injured in an auto accident diminishes signifcantly.
The problem I have with Proud’s position, and you are confronting it in this current conversation is this: statistics don’t matter, logical arguments don’t matter, nothing matters. Proud believes that there should be a significant battery of tests, evaluations, and protocols before a person should purchase a firearm. Only after passing these screenings (one of which I argued can only be proven in death – to which Proud has not argued against) can one then purchase a firearm for legal uses.
The problem is that guilt of a crime is assumed on the front end. And isolated cases of anecdotal evidence demonstrating horrific consequences for extremely rare lapses in the system or loopholes are strong enough to demand the most draconian measures.
What Proud ignores is the argument that people obeying the law to legally purchase a firearm are already following the law. They obtain legal licenses to hunt. They follow safety procedures for keeping the firearms in their homes. They do everything possible to avoid tragedy. They are following the law! Thus, satisfying the law is not enough of a standard to meet for Proud!
Instead Proud insists the vast majority of people owning firearms and satisfying the legal requirements to possess one are nothing more than irresponsible (thus requiring government intrusion in the home to save us from oursleves) and criminals waiting to commit a crime (which can only be proven after we’ve died and never committed a crime).
Proud wants the lines blurred between a law-abiding citizen purchasing a firearm from a licensed dealer for hunting after taking hunter safety courses to legally purchase a hunting license; and a gangbanger buying a stolen gun from the trunk of a thug. In Proud’s world there is no separating these scenarios.
I’ve even argued with Proud that people commit crimes – not the instruments of their trade. That entire line of reasoning was useless. Proud basically argued that my investment of time in young people was some sort of effort to claim a title of nobility. Frankly, if people are going to focus that intently on objects at the expense of the people involved – what can we expect?
I don’t dislike Proud for it. I’m not even frustrated by it. If s/he thinks they will be safer without firearms – good for them. However, when Proud and people like him/her want to make that decision for me – I don’t think so.
Imagine that, a black guy shot another black guy in Edgewood. Lawd have mercy!