Jail Escapee Killed by Hostages

Rafael Arnez McLoud won’t be raping, killing or taking any more hostages:

According to CNN:

Rafael Arnez McCloud allegedly had killed once before. More than eight months later — and days after escaping a Mississippi jail — he appeared poised to kill again. Wielding a bloody knife, he held a man, a woman and their 5-year-old son hostage in a bathroom of their Vicksburg home.

But this time, he was the one who ended up dead.

Early Thursday, the 24-year-old wife and mother, who’d been allowed to leave the bathroom, returned with a handgun and fired one shot at McCloud, police said. She then freed her husband, who “took control of the weapon and fired additional shots, striking McCloud.”

The husband went outside and flagged down a motorist, who called 911. Neighbor Ollie Dixon saw him outside, “wounded and bleeding everywhere.”

Kudos to the young wife for her courage. We can also be thankful that she had the means to defend herself and her family.

Who's your community [dis]organizer and agitator now?
Wizbang Weekend Caption Contest™
  • Brucehenry

    Yes thank God they’re all OK and the bad guy was stopped. On the other hand:

    http://lawnewz.com/crazy/gun-loving-mother-accidentally-shot-by-her-toddler-while-she-drove-horse-trailer/

    • jim_m

      So your argument is that we should allow people to be murdered because some people are careless or incompetent. Gotcha.

      • Brucehenry

        No Jim, not really. But Scalia’s last sentence in his piece calls on us all to be thankful that this lady “had the means to defend herself and her family.” I’m just pointing out that if one “has the means” meaning a firearm, one also assumes the risk that having those means entails.

        I’m pretty sure the woman in my link, shot by her own toddler, would have sworn up and down that she was a “responsible gun owner” and actually, she did claim to be one on her many social media posts about her love for guns and yada yada.

        It’s all fun and games until the “responsible gun owner” has a careless or irresponsible moment — and it’s a nanosecond of a moment seemingly — and someone gets their ass shot. It’s bad enough the “responsible gun owner” got her own ass shot. It could easily have been the kid.

        • jim_m

          No. It’s not “all fun and games”. Owning a gun is serious business. It’s a tool not a toy. A proper culture of gun ownership teaches that lesson.

          But your counterpoint was not teaching that gun ownership comes with risks, it was posing those risks as an argument against gun ownership. You said, yes, you were glad that a more unfortunate incident was avoided but that avoiding such incidents comes at a cost. The fact that you declined to say that the cost was worth it leads to the inevitable conclusion that you believe that the costs aren’t. Otherwise, why are you even bothering to mention them in this context?

          • Brucehenry

            To give food for thought, Jim. Does everything have to be spelled out for you?

          • jim_m

            So, your cognitive skills have degraded to the same level as Rick’s? You post obtuse references without giving any thought as to the meaning or connotation of the statements you are making and you then follow up with refusing to defend them?

            Color me unimpressed.

          • Brucehenry

            Well I seem to have fallen short of my constant goal — to impress Jim_M.

            Damn.

            And I was so sure that THIS TIME you would be just wowed.

          • jim_m

            You actually did impress me the other day when you told Rick to stop posting in the comments because he’s an oversensitive fool who cannot articulate an argument to defend his beliefs. You were completely correct in that instance but I could not say so because Rick is a fascist moron who believes that he is owed a safe space for his cultic beliefs and therefore deletes even politely worded comments.

          • Rent-free in your head Jim? Continuing to pray for your repentance, your redemption, your healing.

          • jim_m

            Fuck you. Your prayers to yourself mean nothing to me, nor do they mean anything to God since you do not believe in Him.

            I found you floundering about trying to defend your position comical, and Bruce was correct that you are too fucking stupid to continue and that anyone with an ounce of intelligence would stop. Seeing that you lack that he tried to show mercy upon you and stop you from continuing to make a fool of yourself and from embarrassing the church you claim to belong to.

            It is to you r lasting shame that you cannot even allow a comment to someone other than yourself that in no way refers to you and is not in any way vulgar or offensive (unless you are admitting that any view that you disagree with is offensive).

            As for living rent free in someone’s head I can always start posting on your threads again and force you to police them like a little fascist prick.

            How long do you think Kevin allows you to continue reposting your crap here if you ban me unfairly again?

            Or are you man enough to admit that you are wrong for being such a hypersenstive crybaby and allow me the opportunity to show that you are wrong?

          • :)…

          • jim_m

            Proof that you are not a Christian is your refusal to forgive. When the apostles asked Jesus how many times they should give someone, they asked if 7 times was enough. He not 7 but 70 times 7. The number of threads were there was an offense between you and I could be counted on one hand.

            You are not a Christian as there is no evidence to convict you of such an accusation. You could be acquitted of such charges easily and I bet that given sufficient inducement you would renounce your faith at the drop of a hat.

          • Brucehenry

            See, Rick? You win arguments with Jim by letting him go apeshit as he has done here!

          • jim_m

            Not really. Just using the Bible to prove to Rick that he is full of crap. But since I doubt he has read the Bible it will probably have no impact.

          • Brucehenry

            Lol

          • jim_m

            Here you go pansy. I posted this on your thread. It doesn’t mention you and is perfectly civil. I dare you to delete it like the hate filled asshole you are:

            Both his supporters and media matters claimed responsibility. I believe with those that since Media Matters claimed responsibility that Trump has grounds for a civil suit claiming they infringed upon his civil rights and that the discovery in such a suit would be fascinating.

            Now this civil post is likely to be deleted, but would only be deleted by someone who is an intolerant moron who’s heart is filled with hate.

            So it doesn’t refer to you unless you delete it, but then if you delete it you are admitting to the charge in the the second paragraph..

            Thanks for playing.

          • 🙂

          • jim_m

            Thank you for proving me correct that you are a hate filled, small minded, hypocritical, moron, who doesn’t know God because he believes and has stated and argued on these pages that he is god himself.

            You have denied many times that you do not delete my comments because you hate me, but really there can no longer be any other explanation. You are as hell bound as the most committed atheist.

          • Brucehenry

            Well he has succeeded in making you lose your shit. You look ridiculous, getting so upset about being banned from part of the comment section of a middling blog.

          • jim_m

            NOt really. I deliver that sort of bile routinely. You should know that being on the receiving end of it enough.

          • Brucehenry

            Well ya got a point there, I’m used to your ridiculous over-the-top reactions but so far you haven’t damned me to everlasting hellfire.

          • jim_m

            I only do that to Rick because he has done the same to me dozens of times.

          • Brucehenry

            YOU STARTED IT!!!!

            Just kidding I don’t recall who started it

          • Brucehenry

            I saw your upding. And yes, Rick deletes even politely worded comments from losers who insult and harass and stalk him for months, and then whine when their insults start getting deleted.

          • jim_m

            I haven’t stalked him. I have been persistent in my disagreement with him. And as you have pointed out several times now, his incapacity to articulate any argument in defense of his beliefs and his refusal to admit when he has misstated himself demonstrate his serious character flaws.

          • Brucehenry

            I didn’t “point out either” of those things. I simply said he is not good at internet argument, and that was in a thread where he was losing an argument with Walter.

          • jim_m

            Yes, poor sentence construction on my part.

            But he has threatened to ban others for disagreeing with him and, as you point out, winning the argument.

            That says quite a bit about Rick’s character and none of it is nice.

          • Brucehenry

            You can say whatever you want about Rick’s character but don’t pretend I have. My point was that he was not good at argument, because he gets too butthurt, too quickly.

            Which is the same reason you suck at it.

          • jim_m

            Oh, I don’t always get so pissy. And you have seen when I put rational argument together I can take anyone down quite effectively.

            No, You didn’t say anything about his character. I pointed out that you said he was crap at arguing and then I pointed out that his compensating by banning or threatening to ban was a sign of a severe deficit of character.

          • Brucehenry

            And I also point out that your incessant whining about being banned from his threads is pathetic.

            If I try to post something on M. Soi Pissant’s threads, no matter how “politely worded” or civil,it is immediately deleted AND I get a snarky email from him gloating about his petty pissant power. But you don’t see me stalking M. Soi Pissant from thread to thread whingeing about the injustice of it all.

          • jim_m

            Unlike you I have been consistent in my saying that he is wrong for his actions. You on the other hand are perfectly content to have your situational ethics where it is OK for people you don’t like to be banned but not OK for it to happen to you.

          • Brucehenry

            The difference, of course, is that M. Soi Pissant banned me and several others from his threads just because he didn’t like our political opinions and not because any of us insulted him personally or called him stupid or claimed he didn’t actually believe in the religion he says he believed in. (Although I did insult his stupid fedora) Or followed him from thread to thread rehashing the same argument for months.

            And another difference is that we got over the butthurt after a week or two. You, not so much.

          • jim_m

            The difference is that Rodney admits that he does so out of his own flesh. Rick claims that he is a messenger from God and acts on God’s behalf. You feed into that delusion. I don’t so I am punished by the cultist who worships the Pope and believes that he is Christ incarnate.

          • Brucehenry

            Well it’s true that M. Soi Pissant doesn’t claim to be anything more than a petty, bullying asshole. Really makes him so much more admirable than Rick. I guess.

          • jim_m

            Actually, yes it does. It is always better to own being a jerk than to wrap one’s self in religion and claim self-righteously and hypocritically to be acting in God’s name.

          • Brucehenry

            Okay, Jim. What a ferocious internet argument master you are. You’ve proven that Rodney is slightly more honest of a jerk than Rick is. Bravo.

          • jim_m

            Oh, the praise is unwarranted. It was an easy task.

          • jim_m

            Oh, and as I have previously demonstrated, I am perfectly willing to be polite on his threads. He seems to believe that he should be above reproach on every thread and has even gone as far as to threaten RM and Walter with banning.

            Rick is every bit as unreasonable as I and is arguably more so since he has abused his power here on a number of occasions. His banning of me from the blog was something that took Kevin some time to correct completely.

          • Scalia

            If you’ve noticed, whenever I post something showing the lawful use of firearms in real-world self-defense situations, Bruce will immediately counter with a news item which discloses somebody’s irresponsible use of a gun.

            My point in posting these things is to lay bare the lie that good guys with guns is a myth. From tens of thousands to millions of times each year, Americans successfully defend themselves with firearms against criminals. That of course partly demonstrates why firearms are needed.

            What is Bruce’s point? Well, I can’t figure that out, but I’ve not addressed it until now. If he wants to remind us that firearms are dangerous, nobody has denied that. If he wants to show us that there are irresponsible people who misuse guns, nobody denies that either. If he wants us to support responsible gun laws, we have consistently supported them for a very long time. Each time he is challenged, he says he doesn’t know what to do about guns, so we’ve gone full circle. What’s the point in pointing out the obvious?

            Again, our point is clear. We are fighting the gun banners who use misleading statistics and specious arguments to take our rights away. Irresponsible gun owners should be punished and we have consistently opposed felons from owning firearms. To argue that “good guys with guns is a myth” is demonstrably false, but we have to keep demonstrating it because tyrants never rest. So, why Bruce keeps that up is beyond me.

          • jim_m

            Because he wants to undermine gun rights while claiming to not be in favor of banning guns.

            He would have no problem whatsoever with gun confiscation, he simply lacks the courage to come out and say so because he knows that his position is not built on a rational argument but is emotional only.

            He also supports the anti-gun position because it is the left wing position so he supports it reflexively without rational consideration.

            So his position is ideological and founded on emotionality and desire to control others. Yet, he remains self aware enough to realize that his position is disgusting and an abuse of the rights of others so he seeks passive aggressive means to accomplish it because he doesn’t want to admit that he’s a little bit of a fascist.

          • Brucehenry

            Now who’s being impressive — psychoanalysis via blog commenting!

          • jim_m

            Show us all that I am wrong. You have a long history of this as Scalia noted which tends to substantiate my analysis.

          • Brucehemorrhoid’s point is that he doesn’t like guns or liberty.

          • Brucehenry

            You say “we,” I assume meaning gun-rights advocates, “have consistently supported responsible gun laws for a very long time.” Yet the NRA opposes closing the gun show loophole and recently led a campaign against the President’s proposal, supported by the vast majority of American citizens, for expanded background checks.

            You say “irresponsible gun owners should be punished,” but I bet the lady in my link gets let off easy. The woman who shot at a suspected shoplifter in the Walmart parking lot is not in jail. What actually DOES happen to these idiots? Did the parents of the little girl who accidentally killed the instructor with an Uzi go to prison?

            There are good guys with guns who stop bad guys with guns. There wouldn’t have to be, though, if there weren’t 3 bejillion guns in circulation.

          • Scalia

            You still haven’t addressed why you keep posting what we already know.

            With respect to the so-called gun show loophole, every federal firearms licensee (FFL) is required by law to either run a background check or confirm that a buyer has passed a background check by examining h/er CCP or government-issued purchase permit–regardless the location. If somebody purchases a firearm across state lines, a buyer must undergo a background check and the transaction processed by a FFL in the buyer’s home state. What does not exist on a federal level is a regulation of private transactions within the same state. That’s, of course, a state matter, and states like Colorado, Illinois, Oregon & Washington have enacted such legislation, with exemptions for transactions between family members. As Emily Miller points out:

            “The law already requires licensed gun dealers to run background checks, and over the last 14 years that’s kept 1.5 million of the wrong people from getting their hands on a gun,” said Mr. Obama, when he announced his gun-violence task force results on Jan. 16. “But it’s hard to enforce that law when as many as 40 percent of all gun purchases are conducted without a background check.”

            The 40 percent figure that Mr. Obama and Sen. Dianne Feinstein, California Democrat, cite so frequently comes from a 1997 Justice Department survey. A closer look at that 40 percent number reveals it includes 29 percent of gun owners who said they got their guns from family members or friends and acquaintances.

            That leaves 11 percent of firearms obtained through unfamiliar people. Of these, 3 percent reported they got their firearms “through the mail,” a process that requires a background check from a federally licensed firearms dealer. Four percent said “other,” and 4 percent made their purchase at a gun show.

            The “gun-show loophole” is an exaggeration designed to foster the false impression that this is how the bad guys acquire firearms. A 2001 Justice Department survey found 0.7 percent of state and federal prison inmates bought their weapons at a gun show.

            Gun shows aren’t the equivalent of the Wild West. The vast majority of vendors at the shows are fully licensed dealers who must run the FBI check at the time of sale. What the gun grabbers are really after are transactions between private individuals trading or selling their personal property.

          • Brucehenry

            MIller’s next to last line is puzzling to me: “More good would be done by strengthening the current background check system by ensuring states submit felony convictions and mental health records.”

            One, states are not already compelled to submit felony convictions? Why not, and if not is the NRA actively seeking to make it so? And two, I already have heard many many objections about the mental health records issue (which I can understand, we can’t deny a right to anyone who was ever briefly prescribed Prozac), and many many objections about denying convicted domestic abusers the right to own firearms — which seems to me only common sense. The NRA, as I understand it, opposes that last bit.

          • Scalia

            The NRA completely supports the submission of accurate criminal records for background checks.

          • Brucehenry

            Are you sure? Because I think if it supported that it would already be the law.

          • Scalia
          • jim_m

            Bruce once again found to be wanting in the area of factual knowledge in this case.

          • Brucehenry

            That’s a good video but (assuming the facts asserted are correct) is the NRA demanding from the politicians they contribute to — on the state legislature level — that they will enact legislation to make this tightening of the net happen? Or the congressional candidates they give money to? Or is this video just lip service?

          • Scalia

            If the NRA really opposes something, everybody knows it. The point is that the assertion is false that the NRA opposes the accurate and timely reporting of those records.

            I’m not aware how much pressure they’re putting on state & federal politicians. I can ask around, though.

          • Brucehenry

            Yeah because I’m pretty sure if the NRA really wanted those laws changed they could make it happen. More politicians take money from the NRA than don’t, is my understanding.

          • Scalia

            The NRA supports instant background checks and we have them, don’t we?

          • Brucehenry

            Well I’m just saying, is anyone proposing those laws? You know, some Congressman or legislator who has taken contributions from the NRA with the expectation that he or she will propose such legislation? You know, how lobbies work?

          • Scalia

            Ok, underlying your questions is the transparent accusation that they are lying about background checks or tightening the reporting requirements for a national database. Isn’t testifying before Congress more than lip service (the sync is off, but the message is clear)?

            And that cuts both ways, doesn’t it? If the NRA is on record as supporting the “net tightening,” then wouldn’t it be easy for Obama or Democrats in the various states to propose such legislation? There’s nothing the NRA can do to oppose it once they’ve staked out such a position.

            And what about the point about our Democratic leaders pretending to be opposed to the illegal use of firearms, but refusing to prosecute those who commit firearm crimes (as Cruz notes in the following video)?
            https://youtu.be/2tRidnXwLf8

          • Scalia

            Really? Then why didn’t you know about it’s support for background checks and a complete database? From testimony before Congress to press releases, its position isn’t hidden.

          • Brucehenry

            I’m not a lawmaker taking campaign contributions from the NRA, who I assume would ask “How high?” if LaPierre said “jump.”

          • Scalia

            Again, implicit in that is the assertion that the NRA doesn’t really support the database, and if you’re limiting your “everybody” to politicians, then Obama, et al, are certainly aware of it. Why aren’t they introducing legislation? If you can question the NRA’s motive, then you can question Obama’s too.

          • Scalia

            If you believe that private American citizens should not have their firearms rights abridged, then we’ll be looking for your complaints on this blog if confiscation ever becomes a reality.

          • jim_m

            Not going to hold my breath for that admission.

          • Brucehenry

            If you hold your breath until “confiscation becomes a reality” you’ll be dead before I have to make that admission.

          • jim_m

            LOL. NOt going to hold my breath should it become a reality for you to say that you were wrong. If confiscation became a reality you would be dancing in the streets.

          • Brucehenry

            Since confiscation would necessarily come before my admission, my point stands.

            Your guns won’t be confiscated. Not by Obama, not by Hillary, not by Bernie, and not by the next Democratic president either, whenever he or she is elected.

          • Scalia

            Hillary has already been recorded (as contained in one of my previous posts) stating that the Supreme Court is wrong on the 2nd Amendment. That of course means she doesn’t believe in a personal right to keep and bear arms. Obama has praised gun-grabbing nations as an example for the U.S. to follow (as also contained in my previous posts).

            When our leaders both reject personal firearms rights and praise gun-grabbing nations, it’s naive to think that they wouldn’t hesitate to do the same here if they had the chance. The gay marriage issue is a prime example. They lied about their opposition to gay marriage because it was politically untenable, but the instant they sensed otherwise, they reversed course. That’s the classic definition of a politician: A person who licks his finger, determines which way the wind is blowing, then jumps in front and says, “Follow me.”

            You are on record here as backing off your earlier affirmation of gun rights, and it appears you’re dodging by insisting that confiscation won’t come in our lifetimes. I hope not, but that doesn’t answer the charge. Would you be pleased if it did happen? If not, what would you do about it?

          • Brucehenry

            No, but I would be pleased if there were fewer guns floating around to worry about in the first place. And I think there WOULD be fewer if not for the drumbeat of propaganda that insists that everybody needs one to protect themselves and their families.

            If, as you and LaPierre insist, “the politicians” are failing in their duty to tighten the NICS net, let’s see Jodi Ernst or Ted Cruz introduce legislation to tighten it. Or, on a state level, maybe Michele Fiore could lead the charge.

          • Scalia

            Or Harry Reid, Nancy Pelosi and Barack Obama (who can certainly bully pulpit the thing).

          • Brucehenry

            Well I do admit that if these assertions are true the fact that they haven’t proposed legislation to correct it is indeed troublesome.

          • jim_m

            Scalia has an extremely valid point in that the so called gun show loophole is a bunch of BS. Only people totally bought into the anti-gun propaganda BS or too stupid to know the difference would ever bother to parrot the line you did.

      • You waste your time and inconvenience electrons to no useful purpose.

    • Scalia

      I am pleased to see you thanking God, Bruce. There’s hope for you yet. 😉

  • Par4Course

    Disarming decent people will not make thugs like McCloud any less dangerous. This is a good warning to other would-be violent criminals.

    • A better lesson would have been McCloud dead on the doormat without having injured anyone.

    • Scalia

      And McCloud had knife with which he was able to terrorize an entire family. The good gal with a gun was able to turn tables on the punk. Without the gun, what was she to do, grab another knife?

  • Doug Book

    HOOOOLD on thar! The lady had a gun, the Black murderer only a knife? Hey, that’s not fair! And then the husband pumped a few more rounds into the poor, unfortunate, defenseless, misunderstood, lifelong victim of Whitey? Don’t be too surprised when some leftist DA files charges against the husband, at least! Racism will, of course, lead the proposed indictment.