A child steps in front of a man’s car. Driver Steven Utash hits the kid with his SUV. He stops to render aid. A mob descends on the white Clinton Township resident (yes there is that) and begin to beat him to death. (Utash is currently in critical condition in a medically-induced coma.) If Utash had been armed, he might have avoided his life-threatening injuries. There’s your “It Should Have Been A Defensive Gun Use” story. In fact, this incident was a defensive gun use . . .
Nurse Deborah Hughes intervened, saving Mr. Utash from greater injury. As Hughes says in the video above, she had a gun in her pocket and she was ready to do “damage” if the mob didn’t stop attacking Mr. Utash. So even though the unarmed Utash was an easy target, his life was still saved by an armed citizen. Our gun hero of the day.
FWIW, I reject the antis’ argument that carrying a gun turns ordinary folks into proto-vigilantes. But it’s certainly true that concealed carry eliminates some of the fear that prevents people from going about their business in less salubrious areas, or intervening on behalf of defenseless people who need help. Keep calm and carry on, as they say.
It’s three posts in one!
DGU of the day
It should have been a DGU
and
Nurse Deborah Hughes = Gun hero of the day.
True dat. Headline and text amended.
Oh, and don’t forget that Mr. Utash probably couldn’t afford ObamaCare.
WHAT Obamacare? Didn’t that turn out to be an urban legend?
it has been widely reported that Mr. Utash was in fact, uninsured. (sarcasm) isn’t that illegal in America nowadays? (/sarcasm)
Didn’t that turn out to be an urban legend?
At the very least it’s an oxymoron.
Maybe you can add another title and say this is what happens to a disarmed populous.
It’s “populace”, which is the noun version. “Populous” is an adjective, meaning, well, “peopled by many”.
+10000000 nurse Deborah! I can’t say enough good about her. Defying a MOB of young black thugs. Where the h#!l is the media coverage? From an evil old white man married to a beautiful black woman.
Only white-on-black violence is newsworthy. Black-on-black is just “those people doing what comes naturally”. And I guess black-on-white is viewed the same way.
The agenda is social unrest, but in one direction only. It’s more easily controlled that way.
This. RESPECT to Nurse Hughes. A very brave woman.
I agree. She should get a frikken Nobel Peace Prize, instead of the derision she’ll really get.
I doubt, though, that she imagines herself as any kind of hero. The great ones are like that. Just takin’ care of bidness.
a mob beating a guy, “ain’t nobody got time for that.” you go Ms. Hughes.
I tip my hat to Nurse Hughes for her bravery and courage above and beyond the call of duty. In a perfect world, she SHOULD get a medal, and a briefcase full of money for her heroism. I sincerely wish her well, and hope that she will not be harmed for her actions, either by the gubmint, or the local hood rats.
Reverse the color and we have ourselves a national news story:
Black man runs over white kid on accident and a gang of white guys beat the hell out of him?
Holy Barack “Thatswhatmysonwouldlooklike” Obama on the scene for sure.
Welcome to the social divide. Never needed to happen. The guy was trying to help.
Can you say “Reginald Denny”.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Attack_on_Reginald_Denny
Talk in detroit is prosecuting as a hate crime
Given that, and the local Police Chief encouraging citizens to arm themselves, it appears that bankruptcy has made the local law-abiding residents sick and tired of low-lives who use their color to justify everything. Including, or especially, politicians.
Actually, they were sick and tired of it before; now, they’re doing something about it.
Black on black, no news value.
Black on White, revenge of the downtrodden, no news value
White on black, KKK rides again.
Hypocrites all.
The Black Nurse should get a medal. Especially if the guy lives.
take away, hit a black kid in a black neighborhood, lock the door and wait for 1adam12.
+100,000. Which, as I understand it, makes me a “leftist” here.
Given this demonstrated rush to judgment and infliction of curbside justice, the anti’s would likely argue that it’s a good thing apparently no one in the mob had a firearm. Otherwise the driver and perhaps others could have been killed. This is why regular citizens cannot be entrusted with firearms, so the argument goes.
Yes, before anyone says it, I understand it was two minors arrested and they’re already barred from carrying firearms. Nevertheless, insofar as the police are still investigating and seeking tips, and witness accounts suggest perhaps a dozen participants, we’re likely looking at additional offenders. Some of whom could well be over 18. Even if not, who’s to say these savages, were they not caught this time, wouldn’t wield a lawfully carried firearm the next time they’re moved to mob violence?
Ah, here it is again. “A small handful of people shouldn’t carry firearms, so no one should be allowed to carry firearms!” The man they were beating on was in danger of losing his life, and was saved by a responsibly armed citizen. In other words, none of them had guns (or at least, none of them used any guns they may have had), yet they still presented a credible threat to the man’s life. And his life was saved by an armed woman.
There is absolutely no way you could twist this story in a legitimate way to make a case against people carrying. If anything, it’s proof of why it’s a good idea. In a large group, even unarmed people can present a serious danger to someone’s life. Thus, carry a gun.
Yeppers. Well stated.
Dude, seriously? Those were rickety rebuttals and you know it. We can’t send these guys off to do rhetorical battle for the hearts and minds of anti’s and fence sitters alike if we rah rah rah their every gossamer effort and pat them on the shoulder like a toddler who just made poop.
We need to strengthen our arguments logically and eloquently if we’re to roll over these gun grabbing statists and their naive abettors and roll back their infringements of our rights. Occasionally that entails a little Devil’s Advocate role playing. Don’t undermine it.
” Occasionally that entails a little Devil’s Advocate role playing. ”
Which, obviously, I never do. I’ll write my own replies without any assistance from you, thanks. You cannot be serious.
I liked what he said. GET OVER IT. Or not. Makes no difference to me.
Whatever. No wonder they call you unfunny and irrelevant. Suck it and die. This is why freedoms here whither: lame ass wannabes who’d rather stroke their egos than advance the cause. Congrats on the tiny bit of freedom you destroyed. Rest in Hell, dickweed.
Will you wait there for me, sweetkins?
First, you describe the nurse as a responsibly armed woman. MI requires a license to carry a concealed handgun. Now, I’m not saying she lacks such a valid permit, because I don’t know. However, the video didn’t mention that she holds such a permit. So your characterization of her as “responsible” assumes facts not in evidence. Don’t go getting overly giddy because an apparent good guy with a gun stopped a violent attack.
Second, the nurse does mention in the interview that she had a handgun and was ready to “do some damage” (I love her choice of words there!), no mention was made of her discharging that handgun, threatening anyone with it, or even presenting it in general. More assumptions on your part. Geez, you’re as quick to pass positive judgment as that mob was to act on their collective negative judgment.
All we can conclude from the video, is that a good guy with a strong voice opposed and quelled ths mob violence. Yet, you’ve rewritten the account into a DGU. Talk about twisting the story! Re-read Robert’s final paragraph. You’ll see he tip-toes *right* up to the edge of making the point you did, but didn’t, because the present information doesn’t quite comport with that point.
True, millions of other cases would support that point, but this one doesn’t quite get there. Like Ardent, you’ve fallen into a trap of your own making and, like Ardent, look foolish.
Beyond that, you neglected, save for some snideness, to articulate, let alone address, the original point. The point was how does one counter the anti’s arguing that more lawfully carried guns in such a scenario would degenerate into a free fire zone, wherein many people are killed, as opposed to a mob beating where only one man was nearly killed?
Government trolls have more fun.
First, you’d need to be 21 to carry a handgun.
Are these the same people who can’t seem to come up with a state issued ID to vote? I doubt they can jump to hoops to get a permit to carry or be bothered with the responsibility of it.
Also, are the type of people who beat a stranger in the street as part of a mob the sort of people who avoid felony convictions? Not likely.
Finally, if you’re willing to murder someone over a perceived slight to a stranger are you honestly concerned about the penalty for unlawfully carrying a firearm?
The argument is absurd on it’s face.
Come back when you have evidence that a person lawfully carrying a concealed weapon has shot an innocent man to death as part of a mob attack.
First, I already addressed the age issue and sufficiently pre-empted it. You look foolish for failing to see that.
Second, the POTG are constantly beating the drum not only for Constitutional carry (no licenses), but for full rights at age 18. You don’t get to argue with points that exist only against your will. That is, had you your way, those restrictions would be eliminated, which, elimination of restrictions, is EXACTLY the topic of discussion. You look foolish for arguing against your own position.
Third, again, the POTG are constantly arguing in favor of guns for felons. So you don’t get to make that point either. Had you your way, felony convictions would be a nonissue. Besides, there are many times more crimes committed each year than there are convictions for those crimes. You look foolish for pinning your hopes on criminal justice system effectiveness when, again, the POTG mock on a daily basis the entirety of that same system.
Fourth, the point was in regard to eliminating restrictions and expanding firearms freedom. You look foolish prattling on about unlawful carry, which is irrelevant to the discussion.
So why don’t YOU come back when you can stay on topic and address a very simple and easily defeated argument? Quit being intellectually lazy and assuming that because you’re awash in like-minded support in here, that you can get away with tinkling that weak pee you considered a rebuttal.
Begorrah! A whole new level of trolling!!
You used “salubrious” to describe a location, bravo! Now how many more months do we have to stare at the “Leave a Reply” instructions before I have to get an interpreter?
In the county in which I was born and raised, there is an antebellum home named, by it’s original owners, “Salubria”. I love the name and its connotations.
Legend has it that one of the two tall chimneys on both sides cannot be photographed, for some mystical reason. I’ve always thought that’s hokum, but I’ve never tried it myself.
Googled it. Nice house Lots of pictures, Both chimneys on full view in several of them. 🙂 The internet is a wonderful thing.
A high school classmate of mine, Leta Fitzgerald, lived there for some time. We were never close, however.
That’s why you take the scenic route to avoid driving through certain places…
Point of order.
WTF was this guy doing driving around Detroit without packing heat?
Good on her for doing the right thing, carrying and caring about what happens to other people.
Absolutely! Good Samaritan citizen – god bless her.
Carrying, and caring
I like that phrase, maybe we should adopt it, and use it, sounds great!
Minor point, but I think “caring and carrying” sounds better, because it emphasizes the “caring” part more. Which is why we carry, right?
Regarding media coverage bias: they did air the nurse saying she was armed and prepared. It could have been easily cut out. They aren’t our friends but the truth still got out. Grateful for that otherwise it is a different kind of story.
Almost sounded like a “corner of Florence and Normandie” story.
Didn’t y’all report this late last week? Or am I remembering it from another site or Facebook?
I don’t think it was here. I don’t recall it at all.
I’d like to make the point that a vigilante is someone who seeks out criminals and crime in order to take the law onto their own hands, not someone who just happens to be in the wrong place at the wrong time and intervenes. Armed or not, a good citizen should always intervene as much as they safely can in a situation where a crime is being committed. The gun just makes it possible for said citizen to intervention effectively in a much larger pool of scenarios.
Great job Nurse Deborah Hughes! It takes guts to stand up to a group like that and get involved in a potential life and death situation. I commend her actions.
I am truly glad that Deborah Hughes is an African American. I believe that her background helped to calm the situation, and I fear that if she had been white, she would have been seen as an outsider, and things would have gotten even uglier. As someone who was seen as part of the community, she had standing, of sort, with the attackers. God bless her for carrying and for having the guts to step into that ugly situation to help a stranger.
Some of you are making this racial. The man was speeding through the neighborhood and hit a child, seriously injuring the child. The people in the neighborhood loved the child and would have beaten the hell out of anyone that ran over a child and was speeding through the neighborhood.
If that had been a black man that was speeding through the neighborhood, he would have gotten his a$$ beaten too.
All the same, he should have had a gun and he should be prosecuted for speeding and running over he child after he awakes from his coma.
“Some of you are making this racial.”
Oh god. It was the MOB that made this racial, and no one else. You’re trolling. It won’t work.
I shall not indulge in an ad hominem attack ‘pon you, Sirrah, but you really, REALLLLY should get your facts straight, perhaps by reading more closely the VERY fair media reporting on this incident, before pontificating ignorantly on the subject.
The collision was at LOW SPEED; The street urchin stepped out from behind a parked vehicle into the path of the SLOWLY-moving truck. The urchin, who was NOT ‘run over,’ suffered pavement scrapes and bruises, nothing more, and was taken to a local ER as a precaution and then released. The street urchin had ALSO been one of the group of ‘child-lovers’ that attacked the driver of said SLOW-moving pickup when he stopped to HELP.
So, do you remember the tale of the drunken black man who ran over a group of people, killing several,on a closed street while fleeing the police about two weeks back? Do you remember that he was NOT beaten to the ‘mostly-dead’ condition of THIS man?
I thought not.
Thank you. That was a superb reply, sir.
John, You used the word “speeding” twice? I didn’t see that in the report above. How fast was he going over the speed limit?
But prejudice takes precedence over fact. And I will admit, I’ve been guilty of it at times in the past.
And I probably will again. But the point remains: the driver was not at fault, and stopped to render aid. And was set upon by an irrational, racist mob for his troubles. I wonder if he will do the same next time?
Things like this teach us bad lessons, but I could hardly blame the guy for not stopping next time. But I would bet you he’s the kind of good citizen who would anyway.
That took major league guts for this nurse to get involved. She is not going to be appreciated by many in the community and if she testifies against any of the goons she is going to need more protection than a handgun.
Question for today: What if the racial makeup of all involved were reversed?
You mean what if they had beaten the white kid that got run over? God, I’d hate to think that.
Obama and the Democrats are bringing Detroit style prosperity to your hood soon.