Armed Teacher Hailed As 'Hero' After Stopping Alleged Attempted Kidnapping of 11-Year-Old Girl
By: Alexandra Hutzler (MSN)
Good guy with a gun.........a feel good story for the day?
S E E D E D C O N T E N T
An elementary school employee in Utah is being praised for his heroic action after stepping in to stop an alleged attempted kidnapping of an 11-year-old girl.
Police said a nearby teacher, whose name was not released, stepped in and confronted Cox-Berry. All of the children were taken back inside the building, but Cox-Berry refused to leave.
"At that point this individual began banging on the windows, the exterior windows of a classroom," Bates said.
Police said the teacher produced a firearm to hold Cox-Berry off while calling 911 and waiting for police to arrive.
According to police, the teacher was legally in possession of the gun at the time of the incident as he held a valid concealed firearm permit.
"This employee is protected under the Second Amendment. He followed all policy and procedure at the school, and in this particular case, did everything that he should have done to protect the innocent lives of the children at the school," Lt. Brian Enyon told ABC4. "And in this case, it is likely that a life was saved or injury to a life was prevented due to the actions of this heroic employee."
Utah eliminated its permit requirement for concealed carry last month, making it legal for anyone who can lawfully possess a firearm to carry it hidden in public. Bates said the school district follows state and federal laws regarding the allowance of a gun on school property and the teacher was lawfully in possession of the gun.
Cox-Berry was apprehended after a brief struggle with police. He was taken to the Weber County Jail and charged with one count of child kidnapping, which is a first-degree felony with a potential prison sentence of 15 years to life.
Authorities said there's no apparent link between the 11-year-old girl and the suspect.
Enyon also told the local news outlet that Cox-Berry appeared to be "high on some type of narcotic."
"We certainly understand how anyone looking at the situation and seeing a child, a group of children, potentially in danger from a stranger and school employee intervening—absolutely we can understand that being categorized as a heroic act," Bates told Newsweek.
Tags
Who is online
211 visitors
Great fast, responsible thinking
He is a hero.
If it had happened in places like San Francisco, Chicago, DC, or New York City said teacher would most likely have been fired, arrested, and vilified by the anti gun lobby all in the same day! So glad reason and sanity prevailed.
You mean to tell me this teacher is walking around with a gun and the gun didn’t just spontaneously murder students all on its own?
Anyway, it’s a good story. I’m glad this teacher was able to protect students.
Doubt you will get very many comments on this one ....
This teacher is definitely a hero. Good for him for following the law, getting a conceal carry permit and being responsible with his fire arm. I'm not sure why so many above appear to think everyone on the left would disagree with that assessment. I support 2nd amendment rights and want any law abiding American who follows the law, goes through a background check and buys a fire arm to be able to get one.
This teacher did not have a military style assault rifle with a hundred round clip, did not have a bump stock, was not illegally concealing the weapon and used it appropriately in the defense of his students. Few progressives and those on the left are trying to take away everyone's guns, those who do make such foolish statements are left wing nut-job extremists whose comments are blown way out of proportion by right wing nut-job extremists who try to paint everyone on the left as a 2nd amendment violating gun grabbing pacifist. All I've ever endorsed are universal background checks, limits on high capacity magazines and a recognition from the far right ammo-sexual's that the 2nd amendment is not unlimited as Justice Scalia once pointed out.
well here is an admission
the 2nd amendment has been limited since at least 1936,(NFA) and one can go even further back to the turn of the 18-1900s when punt guns were outlawed( commercial flock hunting) and gauge restrictions were put in place for fowling .
The rest of your diatribe isnt worth the time to pick apart because its been getting hashed and rehashed most of my adult life .
Still not able to accept that most on the left support the 2nd amendment and many are gun owners themselves and have never even suggested taking everyone guns away? I, along with many if not most on the left, support the 2nd amendment and sensible gun laws, those two things are not mutually exclusive. How hard is it for those on the right to admit such a basic truth? Or is the scary straw man that everyone on the left wants to ban guns just too ingrained in right wing ideology?
well my understanding of what some if not most of the left think the 2nd means is that they feel that only certain individuals or groups should be "the only ones " to have the privilige to own or possess certain things .
My bottom line is actually this , what i can afford or own is not subject to anyone elses fears of what MIGHT never happen or their desires and is actually none of their business, as long as no law is being broken , and they should not expect myself to vote in a way that would further their cause or beliefs . they of course are free to make choices for themselves to practice , they are NOT free to make choices for myself nor will i let them.
if it had to come down to it and gun control were to be instituted , here is my version , all cops will start looking like the cops out of demolition man , nothing but kind words and electric cattle prods and getting directions on how to handle situations on some phone app. no matter whom they are facing , happy happy joy joy and have a glorious day....
military? they dont need those things unless there is an active war , they can train with broomsticks , , politicians ? no security details , they take their chances just like everyone else . civilian ownership? EVERYBODY is unarmed period no excuses no hiding shit .
wouldnt THAT be such an utopian existance?
So virtually every time we have a seed about another mass shooting you don't see that attack coming from the right? Really? Even in this seed there are comments like "we have been told repeatedly that allowing people to exercise their rights is dangerous and will result in gunfights endangering others" and "If it had happened in places like San Francisco, Chicago, DC, or New York City said teacher would most likely have been fired, arrested, and vilified by the anti gun lobby all in the same day!" or "kind of surprised that no one has commented about drivel on "how do you tell a good guy with a gun". Are you trying to say that when you were surprised "no one" had commented you meant those on the left that you expected to attack this guy? Is all this push back on my comments because you were surprised that someone on the left was also calling this guy a hero? Did that dash some desired straw man preconceived ideas?
Well that's just an erroneous opinion based on fantasy not facts.
I agree, but that doesn't mean we shouldn't have universal background checks or laws that ban the sale of fully automatic weapons, military explosives, or other WMD's which are constitutional laws since the 2nd amendment is not unlimited. And if some States or even the federal government added high capacity magazines, bump stocks or some semi-automatic military style assault rifles most commonly used in mass shootings it still would not be violating the 2nd amendment.
Well existing federal gun laws already do make choices for you since they do ban certain types of weapons, mostly military weapons and explosives.
That's essentially what they have in Brittan where only special circumstances/SWAT regularly carry guns. And no, that's not what sensible gun laws mean to the majority of us on the left.
That's not what I'd describe as utopian and isn't what I or anyone on the left that I know would ever want. Seems more like a scary straw man brought out to frighten conservative children away from dating or being friends with any progressive or liberal "leftists".
I am enjoying watching you go through your paces .
I have never said i was against background checks , all for them as a matter of fact , the detail i hold to is at whose cost and expense and who can do it , solve that and things might move forward .
things the government so called "bans " is also able to be lic'd to those that wish to follow the prossess and cost and regulations , i can afford to purchase an actual m-16 fully select fire semi and auto , do i want to ? nope cost vs efficiency doesnt add up. can i afford a browning M-2? i can , but what the hell would i use it for other than a novelty thing that is really really expensive , so i have no desire to own one . the things so called "banned " are still available if i choose to spend the money , thing is , they are also things , i have no interest in or want to own so it is what it is .
Explosives , thats a good one , legally anyone unless prohibitted by law ( usually convicted felons) can have in their posession up to 50 #s no lic needed , it is usually applied to gunpowder , the blasters lic allows, i am not sure but ,up to 200#s at any one time for a non commercial personal use and storage before regulations kick in, anymore and the gov starts asking questions , which is what i think you really mean , if not please correct .
you actually proved my point of certain only ones that would be permitted to have a privilige , that would be carved out to serve the government functions with exemptions , sounds more like a dictatorship to me .
want to know whats really funny though DP ? because of past discussions and things i have seen you profess /admit to , if you approached me to buy a firearm in a private sale , i wouldnt do it , because it would be breaking the law if i trust you were telling the truth then .
" Automatic Weapons Are Legal, But It Takes A Lot To Get One Of The 630,000 In The U.S."
“[The] FBI looks at you, you have to send in fingerprints and photographs , and you do a transfer tax along with each weapon transaction costing $200 .” " In other words, unlike most guns, you can’t just show up at Walmart and take one home. It can take close to a year to get approved to purchase each machine gun ."
" A single machine gun often runs into the tens of thousands of dollars and that’s before purchasing ammunition for the gun. That can run as high as $5 a round."
" The legal limit of explosive material in a consumer (1.4G or Class C) firework is 50 mg ( about the size of half an aspirin tablet )" Any item containing more than 50 mg is illegal and should be avoided.
.
Right, no license needed for the half an aspirin sized explosive, obviously not what I was referring to.
You said " the left think the 2nd means is that they feel that only certain individuals or groups should be "the only ones " to have the privilige to own or possess certain things" but what I pointed out were laws that both sides of the aisle have agreed upon to keep us safer as a nation. Restrictions on automatic weapons and explosives over the half an aspirin size aren't a partisan thing, they are a sensible non-partisan thing.
Oh, please do link a post from me that would somehow make you wary of selling me a gun, or is it that you simply wouldn't sell a gun to anyone who actually thinks for themselves and doesn't have their head firmly shoved up some Banana Republicans ass?
You wouldn't have to worry about my posts or anything else if there were consistent universal background checks. Apparently you're one who would refuse sales to anyone who didn't align with your personal political beliefs which of course is illegal in most States. But I guess some prefer to just gobble on the male end of a tail pipe till they start to choke rather than accept facts and admit maybe they were wrong.
Ok so let me get this straight .
the firearms laws should be set up in such a way that those that are deemed a risk or should not have acsess to them are weeded out , that i can agree with and i am sure that surprises you .
that the laws should restrict and limit physically what is available to non government or LEO agencies and they as per the norm carve out exemptions and exceptions . I see a lot of room for both debate and discussion there as to government or LEO exemptions mainly on the grounds of research and development of the so called "safe gun tech" being fostered .
So i am being accused of being wrong for saying that it appears that those on the left calling for bans, wish to remove any item they feel is inappropriate for citizen ownership for anyone they feel should not have it ? according to their ill defined definitions.
or that there are those that feel in order to be able to posses any firearm should have to subject themselves to a background check equivilant to getting a security clearance to handle nuclear materials during the manhattan project of the 40s it would appear.
Now this one really makes me laugh.
half an aspirin tablets weight of explosives as a limit?
well anyone thats bought ammunition have violated that limit when they made a purchase, hell a single bullet has more gunpowder than a half an aspirin weighs , gun powder is sold by the pound at a minimum, oops i guess thats another illegal sale , lets not think about having different types of powders for different applications or rounds ...... hell a person can have 100 pounds each of all 3 of the ingridients used to make black powder and its still legal.
Oh and lets not get into the annual 4th of july fireworks people like to pop off...... a half of an aspirin weight of explosives ?
as i have already said im all for background checks , even posted what i think would work to help move to a solution above 8.1.4 , that is what i feel is acceptable , what i have seen is though many will say they are for better background checks , what is not mentioned is support is whittled away and drops as details are discussed , and the discussion eventually always leads to not enough support for whats proposed . devils in the details
I really dont care what your political alignment is so that has absolutely no bearing on me not making a private sale of a firearm to you .
one major factor is the state line thing , its illegal am not a licd dealer and selling across state lines without involving an FFL in your state is illegal. that alone is reason for no sale and i have denied to sell to people for that reason alone .
Part of the rules for private sales is they can not proceed if the seller reasonably knows someone is a prohibited person by law , whether or not they have been convicted . some of your statements if i made you fill out a 4473 and you answered them truthfully in accordance with what you have already said? cant sell to you . you have admitted weed use , federal law says i can not sell to you , even if its legal in your state of residence , so again no sale . just like if someone i know attempts to purchase and is a habitual stumble bum drunk. it wont happen.
Now some of your other statements made that would be reason for me to not make a sale? they would fall under the prolly shouldnt sell to this person. statements like , i sold all my long guns because right wingers were becoming too tempting targets , or i hope those right wingers get stacked up like cordwood or the rightwinger body count should be extremely high to teach them a lesson , all paraphrased , but undeniable in intent and meaning , my reason for not selling? seems there is an impulse control issue ,anger issue , or a potential mass murderer in the making after hearing any statement like that directly from you , and i have seen such statements from you . and that is all i need to say no sale
welcome back , enjoy your vaca? the obvious thing is i dont care what you particularly think or want .
Unfortunately, for every good guy with a gun, they are outnumbered by the bad guys with guns. Kudos to this good guy.
i would say there is a 3rd group , those that are neither good or bad that have them. it will just depend on ones individual perception and definition of the other 2 groups..
True that.
Not sure why you say that because there are probably more good guy gun owners, but would you rather just the bad guys had guns?
i can understand that thinking , mainly because of the way incidents are reported , successful defense with firearms by an individual doing so legally is not exactly considered newsworthy, nor does it conform to the desired outcome , and the media is basically already known to have a side . my opinion is they will ramp up the illegal uses and downplay the legal uses of self defense to skew the storys .
It was a question. Do you know what a ? mark is? Apparently not.
I understand that this is challenging for you but again if you reread the comment you will see a ? mark.
I am sure she doesn’t need you speaking for her.