Today’s Commercial appeal has an update to the story about the civil lawsuit against Harry Coleman over that restaurant parking lot shooting with more details from the civil complaint. I hadn’t heard the name of the restaurant before… guy with a Hummer, eating at the Catrioti, decides he has to prove something and whips out a gun…
After shooting Robert ‘Dutch’ Schwerin Jr. in front of his three children, Coleman “fanned the gun in a circle so as to threaten all present” and made threatening remarks to Schwerin’s son and a bystander who was offering him aid, said the Circuit Court lawsuit filed by attorney Gary Smith.
The document also names Coleman’s wife, Katheryn Coleman, as a defendant, and alleges that both were aggressive, taunting and appeared to be intoxicated. …
The shooting occurred shortly after Schwerin, a widower, attended a family birthday dinner for his father-in-law at Villa Castrioti.
As they left the restaurant, they were unable to get into his GMC Yukon Denali because Coleman’s Hummer H1 was parked too closely.
The suit said Katheryn Coleman became “enraged” and began screaming at Schwerin when she noticed a small light cover had been removed from the Hummer’s running lights and placed on the hood.
She told a female companion, believed to be her mother, to notify Coleman in the restaurant to come to the parking lot where he then confronted Schwerin, according to the suit.
Schwerin remained standing on the sidewalk in front of his vehicle, the suit says, but it does not reveal what, if anything, he was saying.
As the argument became more volatile, Coleman got a .45-caliber pistol from his vehicle, striking Schwerin’s GMC as he opened the door to his Hummer, the suit says. It also says Schwerin’s 21-year-old son, Dallas, and a bystander tried to intervene.
Coleman’s lawyer says, more or less, that’s not how he heard it happened. There’s also this:
On Monday, Circuit Court Judge Karen Williams granted a restraining order banning Coleman from disposing of any assets without permission of the court, including financial accounts, vehicles, airplanes and boats.
Coleman owns a 60-foot fishing yacht on which he and his crew won $169,000 last year in a blue marlin fishing tournament in Sandestin, Fla.
Couldn’t he have just parked next to a bus full of trial lawyers? You know those class action types. Ha! scratch my ride will you! It’s just another one of those sad things of placing ego,pride and what I’m certain is a traditional stupidity before decent human life. Should have applied sticks and stones to whatever was said. As for the scratch the realization it’s mental and paint not to mention insurance. Well they’ll be time to consider in hind sight.
God Almighty – the newspaper article notes that the shooter actually stuck the muzzle of the pistol in the victim’s mouth before pulling back and shooting him in the chest. My God, what a cruel, taunting trick. This whole thing is so dark, so disturbing.
This was a senseless incident. Over a small light cover which could have been replaced to take someone’s life which cannot be replaced is cruel.
“Hand guns are made for killin’, ain’t no good for nothin’ else”
He is attempting to establish a new justification defense. Traditionally, we had self defense and defense of others. We now have the castle defense. This guy is attempting to establish the defense of Hummer.
ain’t all guns made for killin’?
Pam only if you can hit what your shooting at. My advice is PRACTICE…. Guns = AMERICANS…. ANTI GUN = MOVE TO ENGLAND…….
The story is sad I feel for the family. The gun did not kill anyone. The person did. I think all american citizens should be required to read and study the federalist papers. The founders of our country had some very strong feelings about the right to bear arms. I offer the following quotes to consider.
“The most foolish mistake we could possibly make would be to allow the subject races to possess arms. History shows that all conquerors who have allowed their subject races to carry arms have prepared their own downfall by so doing.”
– Adolph Hitler, Hitler’s Secret Conversations 403 (Norman Cameron and R.H. Stevens trans., 1961)
“The best we can hope for concerning the people at large is that they be properly armed.”
– Alexander Hamilton, The Federalist Papers at 184-188
That the said Constitution shall never be construed to authorize Congress to infringe the just liberty of the press or the rights of conscience; or to prevent the people of the United States who are peaceable citizens from keeping their own arms … ”
– Samuel Adams, Debates and Proceedings in the Convention of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, at 86-87 (Pierce & Hale, eds., Boston, 1850)
“[The Constitution preserves] the advantage of being armed which Americans possess over the people of almost every other nation…(where) the governments are afraid to trust the people with arms.”
–James Madison, The Federalist Papers, No. 46
“Before a standing army can rule, the people must be disarmed; as they are in almost every kingdom in Europe. The supreme power in America cannot enforce unjust laws by the sword; because the whole body of the people are armed, and constitute a force superior to any band of regular troops that can be, on any pretense, raised in the United States. A military force, at the command of Congress, can execute no laws, but such as the people perceive to be just and constitutional; for they will possess the power, and jealousy will instantly inspire the inclination, to resist the execution of a law which appears to them unjust and oppressive.”
–Noah Webster, An Examination of the Leading Principles of the Federal Constitution (Philadelphia 1787).
“What country can preserve its liberties if its rulers are not warned from time to time that their people preserve the spirit of resistance? Let them take arms.”
– Thomas Jefferson to William Stephens Smith, 1787. ME 6:373, Papers 12:356
“No Free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms.”
– Thomas Jefferson, Proposal Virginia Constitution, 1 T. Jefferson Papers, 334,[C.J. Boyd, Ed., 1950]
” … to disarm the people – that was the best and most effectual way to enslave them.”
– George Mason, 3 Elliot, Debates at 380
What do these guys know about the constitution?
Gotta give credit where credit is due: No one but a true gun wacko can connect Hitler, Hamilton (somebody shoulda shot that bastard), Adams, Jefferson, Madison, Noah Webster, and the Federalist crockpot in one line of nonsense.
Kudos.
Ben says,Gotta give credit where credit is due: No one but a true gun wacko can connect Hitler, Hamilton (somebody shoulda shot that bastard), Adams, Jefferson, Madison, Noah Webster, and the Federalist crockpot in one line of nonsense.
Kudos.
The irony just had to be quoted.
Feigned ignorance is the last resort for many.
Hatfield:
Just f.y.i., the Hitler quote (you wrote what do these guys know about the constitution?) was about whether the Eastern European states would be allowed to have armed police or militias under German occupation, not whether the citizenry would be allowed to carry arms.
The Hamilton quote in context is absolutely positively about having a trained, drilling militia, not people having guns at home. Read the context of Federalist 29 here if you want. I’d call citing that a big “woops” on that 2nd-amend-wasnt-about-militias argument.
That’s just the first two quotes. I’m tired and I’ll leave the rest to others. It’s not that I want to have an argument for/against an individual right to bear arms. It’s that I’m tired of the overbearing shouting.
A guy carrying a gun in his car killed someone, with a gun. Senseless and cruel act. You can argue that the gun homicide rate we have in this country is worth the price of freedom if you want, but without doubt: The level at which we have an armed populace produces an exceptionally high rate of killings with guns. And it’s the guns. Quoting Hitler and the other (?) founding fathers doesn’t change that.
Guns don’t kill people but people with guns and alcohol and/or a LOT of anger do kill people. Suppose he hadn’t had a gun-with the alcohol and his own temperament- maybe he would have just beat him up, but not have killed him. With no gun and no alcohol, maybe he might have just shot him the bird, cussed him out and driven off. Guns=death is NOT a fair price for freedom. In fact, it’s not freedom for some folks, it’s death.
GG, same can be said for autos.
Autos and alcohol kill people, but I would dare that you would have extreme objections to your liberty being imposed upon to save a life because autos=death is NOT a fair price for liberty or freedom of your traveling on your own.
Too many are so willing to impose their ideals (Republicans included) on others solely because the freedom associated with something they do not care about or participate in would not therefore be infringed upon with respect to themselves.
Another example is the recent statements by some that the First Amendment should be infringed upon because it incites hate and causes someone else to act out. We are too willing to infringe upon general rights of the majority because there is always a minority that doesn’t follow the law, doesn’t act for the common good or is simply unstable.
Freedom = NOT imposing restrictions on everyone in an attempt to sequester those that are criminal in the first place.
NMC, your argument infers that the absence of guns would therefor mean the absence of the “rate of killing.” It worries me (about the state of society) if there are so many like you that seem to believe that by simply having a gun, killing someone is the next logical step and that whatever other means they would otherwise have at their disposal would not equate to their actions. That would be a sad commentary to the state of our society. Ease of killing must therefore equal more killing.
I’ll bite. First, ease of killing does equal more killing JDB – look at what happened in the parking lot. Had there not been a gun, a man would not be dead right now. Period.
Rights are oftentimes restricted because the public is willing to sacrifice parts of our freedom for safety and order. When you pull out onto the street and follow a posted speed limit sign, wait at a red light, or fasten your safety belt you are limiting your rights. You still fundamentally enjoy the freedom “to travel on your own” (I’ll bypass the fact that you are reading fundamental rights into the constitution like a “liberal” (see Justice Stevens in Saenz v. Roe constructing the right to travel out of the 14th amendment ) and that the Constitutional right to travel does not include the right to travel alone) however, limits have been set on that freedom to ensure a reasonable amount of safety and order. If you put pants on the morning before you go to work you sacrifice rights, if you put your trash in a trash can you sacrifice a right, if you piss in the pot you sacrifice a right. Restricting the ownership of handguns, which are not widely used nor very necessary in hunting (at least in my long years) nor needed for a militia or other organizations to defeat tyranny, does not steal away your fundamental right, it ensures a level safety and order – striking a balance between restrictions, the need for safety and the sanctity of a given right is one of the many jobs of our elected officials.
As for that minority that doesn’t act for the common good or is simply unstable – well, I think you might be on to something there, you might want to do some self-reflection.
“Autos and alcohol kill people”-that’s true. BUT, we NEED autos to get through our daily dealings. We do not need guns to do so.
Not going to jump in ya’lls gun debate. I bought two after Hurricane Katrina when returning to coast, primarily based on rumors of highjackings (bringing home gas and supplies)and New Orleans looked like a all hell was breaking loose, wasn’t sure what we were facing. I will have admit that there were at least 3-4 occasions in the following three weeks that I was happy I had the gun on my hip and if I hadn’t had it prominently displayed not sure what would have happened. I never unholstered it but they knew it was there and my famiy was safe.
BUT I have seen one too many cases where alcohol and a gun turned a bloody nose fight over nothing into a murder or at least manslaughter. Look what came out of this two families completely destroyed over NOTHING. I just don’t understand “people” or the need to bring a gun to a fist fight. SAD INDEED!!
JDB:
As a former Marine, I can affirmatively state that ease of killing does equal more killing.
I love this place :) I just think the “person” not the “Gun” did the killing. Banning or restricting guns is not the answer.
Ben I served my country and the term “Gun Wacko” is very shallow on your behalf. Actually “Trained Gun Expert” would be closer to the truth as thats how I qualified in the Army. Having a father killed in Vietnam inspired me to serve my country. I was very lucky there wasn’t a war to deploy to in the early 80′s.
NMC the quotes I cited are on point with the spirit of Gun ownership in this country. I believe the supreme court recently affirmed this.
Good debate on this subject. I knew it would happen when I posted yesterday.
Expeditio, our society doesn’t exist in the realm of war. And I’m sorry you are disavowing your brotherhood with other Marines as there is no such thing as a “former” Marine.
BB, Attempting to justify removing handguns by stating you know what would have occurred in the absence of a gun, is absurd. Stating that handguns aren’t widely used is absurd. Just because you don’t use a handgun and don’t have actual knowledge on your side, trying to paint it the way you want isn’t worth responding to.
Again, I seem to see people willing to sacrifice a right that they don’t particularly enjoy for whatever reason, but don’t really care about the innocent law-abiding citizens who use that right to defend themselves and their family. All because the majority of gun crimes are committed by those who shouldn’t have had a gun in the first place, because a restriction was already laid upon them disallowing ownership.
JD: Sure … there are lotsa “former Marines.” I’ve court-martialed scores of them and discharged them under Other Than Honorable conditions.
Hatfield: I thank you and your dad for your service. My post was an electronic wedgie … you took it better than I expected.
Gotta love the arguments ad hominem, a great way to support a argument. I have a handgun in my home for protection, please do not assume you know anything about me.
Had there not been a gun, a man would not be dead right now. Period.
As for that minority that doesn’t act for the common good or is simply unstable – well, I think you might be on to something there, you might want to do some self-reflection.
Ben, once a Marine, always a Marine. Some simply didn’t get all of the corrective training they required and every one gets discharged one way or another.
Gentlemen:
I am an Honorably Discharged Marine who served on active duty from 1975 through 1979. As a combat engineer, among other assignments, I was trained in various weapons systems and explosive devises and was recognized with a 3rd Award Rifle Expert designation. You can not comprehend how deeply the Corps is ingrained in my soul. I simply referred to myself as a “former” Marine in order to make my status clear to the unknowing. Semper Fi
Expeditio: Semper Fi, Mack. Thank you for your service.
If only the Iranian citizens had the right to own guns —perhaps what we are currently witnessing (government brutality toward its own citizens in retalitaion for peaceful protest) would not be happening — or even better, the citizens might actually have a chance to overthrow that repressive government.
If only the Chinese people had the right to own guns — perhaps the Tiananmen Square event history would have been much different.
If only the North Korean people had the right to own guns —- perhaps their country would not be controlled by certified, homocidal idiots who consistently threaten the world.
If only……….
Our second amendment rights are fundamental to our rights of liberty and our freedom.
Fundamental constitutional rights are abused all the time by our citizens —such has been the case since the founding of our country and the enactment of our Constitution and its amendments. And such abuse is no just reason to eliminate the constitutional rights of all, but rather justification to impose personal responsibility, accountability and consequences upon the abuser.
This is clearly a case of too many people living in too close proximity to one another. Guns are essential still. If not to impede overbearing governments, then at least to thin the herd of Homo Sapiens that is ever increasing and all consuming.