Armed robber targets gas station

A gas station employee said a man in a mask came into the store early this morning and demanded money at gunpoint.
Becky Vargo
Dec 31, 2013

Police responded at 2:18 a.m. to the Mobile Oasis, 9673 Adams St., near I-196, but the robber had fled on foot a short distance away, apparently to a waiting car, police said.

The employee told police a black man wearing a ski mask walked into the store and pointed a semi-automatic handgun at him. He demanded the employee open the safe, but when the employee told him he did not have access to it, the suspect demanded he empty the cash register onto the counter. The suspect picked up the money and fled.

Ottawa County Sheriff’s deputies followed footprints to the west.

Anyone with information on the incident should call the Ottawa County Sheriff’s Department, or Silent Observer at 877-88-SILENT.
 

Comments

jayceeranger

Oh, Grand Haven needs another "Civil conversation on gun violence". No doubt having conversations about "common sense gun control" will stop guys like this from criminal acts. I'm sure the guy in the picture would be happy to turn in his gun. At the very least, he'd fill out forms to register his gun and go through background checks.

Legal gun dealers take gun registration and curren laws for back ground checks seriously. Before uninformed holler about "gun show loopholes", note the robber is using a hand gun. Any "loophole" does not apply to hand guns sold in a regular gun store or show. All registration and backgrojund apply.

Yes, you might buy a rifle, etc from a gun show without a background check, but here like 99.9% of criminall activity and shootings, a hand gun is the weapon of choice for criminals.

Obviously an oversight was made when this guy bought his gun from the trunk of a car. No doubt the dealer must have "lost" the paper work. Perhaps it fell into the spare tire well and wasn't sent in.

It's a good thing the attendent wasn't shot. However for every parent whose young daughter or son works in such an establishment, they can rest assured that in an emergency the police are only 10 minutes away. When they arrive and place tape outline on the floor of the body, it's sure to console the parents. At some point more people will realize that it is not the job of the police to protect them. That is a individual responsibility unless taken away by the well meaning but sadly miss informed gun control types.

Michael Johnson

Well...let's see how long it takes to catch the perpetrator thanks to this business owner's decision to have security cameras on his or her premises. Then let's compare how long it takes to apprehend the abductor of Jessica Heeringa, who worked at an establishment whose owner thought such a system a needless expense.

retired DOC

Anyone want to bet if this was already a convicted felon that could not have bought any gun the legal way?

Truth Be Told

Absolutely "common sense" gun control would have detoured this robbery.
Gang bangers and hoods are eager to comply and will lead by example by being first in line to register their stolen weapons.
Then it's time to ban the NRA and all those "bitter clingers" who insist on their silly constitutional rights, after all, street crime is %100 their fault.

bigdeal

figures you morons would be on here screaming about alleged gun control, you know Obama wants to take your guns away? Here's a solution, let's produce hundreds of thousands of more handguns so creeps like this can steal them from idiots like you all (and Felix & other local 'gun dealers') so they can terrorize & kill other people. Good solution!

Tri-cities realist

Or we could follow the path of Germany in the last century. That worked out pretty well.

LessThanAmused

We kinda are following that path and the people in charge learned from the mistakes of last time so yeah, it will probably work out pretty well for them, not so much for the rest of humanity.

echo5oscar

I'm sure if we stopped producing handguns crime would go away.

LessThanAmused

When you say things like that, that way, you should really hold up your sarcasm sign.

echo5oscar

Could not find a sarcasm sign on my keyboard. Sarcasm is about all this post rates.

truthhurts

ummm....they already are. You can thank your boy obama for that. Guns sales have been at record high since he took office. Thanks for making America safer!...i've bought 3 mores guns and a dozen high cap mags in the last 2.5 years.

Lanivan

A Federal judge has ruled constitutional the strict new gun laws passed in New York last January. The new laws strengthen the ban on assault weapons. Good call, Judge. This ruling follows more closely a strict interpretation of the original intent of the 2nd Amendment that allows for a militia to own single shot muskets.

Those who promote the Constitutional right to bear semi-automatic assault weapons are dragging the Constitution into the 21st Century, allowing it to be modernized, if you will; as technology develops, so must the Constitution!

Vladtheimp

Although the Judge's decision is contrary to the Constitution, as interpreted by the Supreme Court, and will likely be over-ruled, his ruling found that the law's provision that limited magazine capacity to 7 rounds was unconstitutional under the Second Amendment.

The law provided that handguns that have certain characteristics, including the ability to accept a detachable magazine, are "semiautomatic versions of an automatic rifle, shotgun, or firearm" whatever that means, and that it was illegal to have a magazine or feeding device loaded with more than 7 rounds. The judge found both of these provisions unconstitutional.

So, the fabrication about the strict interpretation of the the 2nd amendment and single shot muskets is simply bunkum,

Lanivan

I knew about striking down the 7 round provision, but I'm curious why you believe the entire NY judge's ruling will be over-ruled. If you are basing this on the SCOTUS Heller ruling, doesn't that ruling still allow for some form of gun control laws in various jurisdictions?

You seem to be championing the looser, more contemporary interpretation of the 2nd amendment. I'm surprised.

Vladtheimp

I champion the literal wording of the 2nd Amendment:

"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

Just as I advocate for the literal meaning of any statute or amendment, such as:

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."

Sorry, no emanations, penumbras, walls of separation or other liberal fictions.

Lanivan

Thanks for the cut and paste from your Constitution crib sheet. I see you champion the drafted version of the 2nd over the the ratified one - figures. But you still didn't answer my question, once again. I asked because your response conflicts with the following from another forum, and I am always interested in your interpretations:

"I would think twice before I took this case to the Supreme Court - and that's if they decide to grant cert on it. The current make-up of the court, Justice Thomas aside, is very unlikely to restrict the rights of states to either tighten or loosen restrictions on gun and ammunition use.

This is not a Second Amendment case, much as the NRA would like it to be; rather, it is a states rights/federalism case that will allow the Court, if it hears the case, to craft an opinion that very narrowly interprets the issue.

So, for those who think that a Supreme's ruling on the instant case will strengthen their Second Amendment rights, dream on. I can't imagine how much money the NRA will raise to fight this case without necessarily letting on this isn't the key case gun advocates want it to be."

Vladtheimp

I disagree - this is a Second Amendment case and the Constitution trumps states rights; having said that, since left wingers are always happy to distort the clear meaning of the Constitution, which represented a compromise between the sovereignty of the states and those powers they were willing to cede to the national government, I can foresee a time where the states decide to opt out since the contract they agreed to has been breached by the grasping federal government,

Lanivan

Your prediction of a state secessionist movement coming to fruition is diametrically opposed to Justice Scalia's 2006 letter whereby he views secession from the Federal government to be unconstitutional. But we all must have our dreams.

Tri-cities realist

As you well know, the 2nd Amendment references "arms", not "guns" or "muskets". Could it be that the authors realized that as technology advanced, they didn't want the Constitution to limit the people's right to self defense, and freedom from a tyrannical govt?

And if you are so inclined, please define exactly what constitutes an "assault weapon".

What part of "infringed" don't people understand?

Lanivan

I wasn't aware that anybody was infringing on the citizen right to bear firearms or limit the citizen right to self-defense. I couldn't agree more that that would be very bad, indeed. Perhaps you could provide some examples of this totally unconstitutional impingement on potential infringements of our rights.

My thought is that the argument really should center around what the founders considered a 'militia', rather than the firearm.

Assault weapon refers to semi-automatic assault weapons - those that are designed solely to kill multiple people within short periods of time, rather than weapons designed for hunting, sport, or antique weapons that are considered collectibles. I wasn't there, but I very much doubt that the writers of the Constitution were envisioning that they were allowing the average citizen the right to bear machine guns, RPG's, or semi-automatics with 100-clip rounds.

People during the time the Constitution was written were primarily concerned with the British and their allies, the Indians, and the heavy, violent skirmishes that continued on way past the end of the Revolutionary War. The people leaving the eastern seaboard and migrating into the frontier were very vulnerable to British/Indian attacks, and it was critical they formed well-armed militias as they settled territory. I wasn't there, but I don't consider this component of American revolutionary history to be a stretch in interpreting the motivations of the writers.

Vladtheimp

That is pure sophistry, parroting left wing made up ideas about firearms calculated to win a public relations war waged among the government - school educated.

Semi-automatic simply means you have to pull the trigger each time a projectile is fired. Unlike a single-shot gun, you don’t need to cock it or load it after each shot, and most guns are semi-automatic -

The use of the phrase semi-automatic when talking about guns is like using the phrase “gasoline cars.”

Automatic weapons have been tightly regulated since the The National Firearms Act of 1934.

The gun-grabbers made up the "assault weapon" category so Billy Blue Dress Clinton could sign the bill banning so-called "assault weapons." It has nothing to do with "those that are designed solely to kill multiple people within short periods of time" but rather, the physical characteristics of guns that are scary to Pajama Boys and Girls:

A folding or telescoping stock
A pistol grip
A bayonet mount
A flash suppressor, or threads to attach one
A grenade launcher.

They still take one pull of the trigger to fire a bullet. Can't we at least make an attempt to be honest here?

Lanivan

Thank you for the lesson on gun anatomy. I would like to point out that for the majority of Americans, regardless of the various terms used to describe them, guns that are designed solely to kill multiple people within short periods of time are indeed scary and are a threat to public safety.

Isn't it odd that of the 27 most developed countries in the world, the US has the highest number of guns per capita, and the highest rates of gun deaths per capita, and yet the Constitutionalists are worried that public gun safety laws are aimed at infringing on their right to have a gun?

Vladtheimp

Hate to burden you with facts but here goes:

There are roughly 32,000 gun deaths per year in the United States. Of those, around 60% are suicides. About 3% are accidental deaths (less than 1,000). About 34% of deaths (just over 11,000 in both 2010 and 2011) make up the remainder of gun deaths.

Gun homicides are overwhelmingly tied to gang violence. In fact, a staggering 80% of gun homicides are gang-related. According to the Center for Disease Control (CDC), gang homicides accounted for roughly 8,900 of 11,100 gun murders in both 2010 and 2011. That means that there were just 2,200 non gang-related firearm murders in both years in a country of over 300 million people and 250 million guns. Compare them apples to other countries, and figure out the demographics of who shouldn't have guns.

Leftists would disarm honest, non-criminal Americans with their policies doing nothing to protect them from criminals.

Fact: If Barack Hussein Obama and his leftist policies were as successful causing health insurance sales as they are causing gun sales, we would have universal coverage.

bigdeal

don't know where you got your 'facts', but from Wikipedia: The Congressional Research Service in 2009 estimated there were 310 million firearms in the United States (guess production is up), not including weapons owned by the military. 114 million of these were handguns, 110 million were rifles, and 86 million were shotguns.[11] In that same year, the Census bureau stated the population of people in the United States at 305,529,237
'Leftists' would like everyone to take a mental ability test before anyone could buy a gun. Some would obviously not pass.

Vladtheimp

I believe we can reach agreement on this - I'll support a mental ability test before anyone could buy a gun if you'll support a mental ability test before anyone could vote - Deal, Big Deal?

echo5oscar

Excellent! But can we add that you need a photo I.D. to take the test?

bigdeal

That would be great! An IQ or mental ability test would take out over half of the Republican'ts immediately. Good show old bean! Deal!

Lanivan

You might be interested in the September, 2013 study from the American Journal of Medicine that reports countries with lower gun ownership are safer than those with higher gun ownership. Researchers evaluated possible associations between gun ownership rates, mental illness, and risk of firearm-related deaths deaths by studying data of 27 developed countries. I wish I could provide the link, but we all know how that activates the spam filter these days....:(

Vladtheimp

The study you cite does not distinguish between suicides and homicides, so I'm not sure how it defines "safe" - safe from yourself since the overwhelming number of firearm deaths are suicides. Your study also finds that of all the 27 developed countries, the U.S. has the highest incidence of mental illness and the 20th lowest rate of crime, so once again, how does the study define "safe?"

As far as safety in other countries goes, I'm sure that there is little fear of individual crime in North Korea, just like there was little fear of such crime in Nazi Germany or the old Soviet Union, unless you were included in a group that was in disfavor with the governments of those countries.

The Second Amendment is not just about duck hunting or self defense from individual criminals - it is about citizens having the tools to protect themselves against tyrannical government.

Lanivan

I didn't read the whole article - I'll assume you did not either. My impression was that the study took into consideration a wide range of variables to define 'safe', and that all things considered, there was a distinct correlation between gun ownership and those variables. I'll try to find the article.

Nowhere in the 2nd does it mention tyrannical government. It does mention the rights of a well-armed militia. Perhaps the discussion should center on defining 'militia', in both it's historical and contemporary context.

As I mentioned previously, the enemy back in the late 1700's was the British/Indian threat, which was a protracted and violent battle between the settlers, Britain, and the indigenous Indians. I hardly think the greatest enemy facing Americans today is the government. I know you might disagree with me on this, but I hope you won't express it. I've had to accept many things, as you know, but I draw the line at anarchy.

Pages

Post a Comment

Log in to your account to post comments here and on other stories, galleries and polls. Share your thoughts and reply to comments posted by others. Don't have an account on GrandHavenTribune.com? Create a new account today to get started.