If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(WOKV Jacksonville)   Store customer with a concealed weapons permit attempts to stop a robbery. He wounds bystanders and gets into a shootout with police when they think he's the robber. Just kidding. He shot the robber dead and the police thanked him   (wokv.com) divider line 754
    More: Hero, concealed firearm, bystanders, Jacksonville Sheriff's Office, dollar stores, North Side, robbery  
•       •       •

20050 clicks; posted to Main » on 29 Aug 2012 at 5:41 AM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



754 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | » | Last | Show all
 
2012-08-29 09:14:35 AM

JRoo: [i21.photobucket.com image 300x300]


Interesting you mentioned Switzerland with their civilian defense force.

Youtube Video 

Swiss Vote to Keep Guns at Home 
Link
 
2012-08-29 09:14:55 AM

Silly Jesus: themeaningoflifeisnot: Kit Fister: Silly Jesus: themeaningoflifeisnot: dropdfun: themeaningoflifeisnot: I wonder what most cops would say if you asked them what an armed civilian should do when faced with TWO armed robbers holding someone at gunpoint with other people in the store? I would bet that "take them both on yourself" would not be considered a prudent decision.

Sorry to disappoint but I would tell them to do so if circumstances allowed for it. Better for there to be two dead criminals then one dead clerk and one dead witness to the shooting of the clerk. I know my brother who is also in law enforcement would say the same, both were law abiding concealed carrying before entering law enforcement.

You know different cops than I do. Most armed robberies do not end in murder and one civilian not trained like law enforcement to take on multiple armed attackers with innocent lives at risk is far from an optimal situation. It worked out this time because the second robber did not open fire, but few cops I know would say that the best choice in this situation is for one civilian to take on two armed opponents, unless there was no other alternative.

A gun pointed at the clerk is an imminent threat. Every cop that I know would say to do what you feel is appropriate in such a situation. Cops are familiar with armchair quarterbacks with 20/20 hindsight and realize that the best person to assess the situation is the person in it. If there is a safe shot and the robber has the clerk at gunpoint, I don't know any cop that would advise against saving the life of the clerk.

Adding to that, four swat officers, 8 patrol deputies, three FBI agents, and an ATF supervisor all agree that in this case, the guy was justified. That's the limit of the number of people I could call before getting into the office today and ask their opinions.

It's not a question as to whether the civilian was justified. Of course he was based on the facts reported. Thats an easy call that every cop would agree wit ...

You think wrong.


There isn't a judge or jury in FLA that would hold this civilian criminally liable for this shooting if the reported facts are true. And I doubt you are going to find many cops who would say that this was not a justified use of deadly force.

I am in favor of CCWs issued under strict controls. I am glad that this situation ended with no innocent people being killed or injured. I just don't think that the civilian shooter's decision to open fire in a situation where he was outnumbered by armed attackers and innocent bystanders were at risk lends itself very well to exploitation as proof that CCW holders will create a safer American society.
 
2012-08-29 09:15:12 AM
Pribar:
cut your rambling knee jerk post down so I could reply without the wall of text that said the same thing I did but in many many more words Its the culture not the guns read before your knee goes all jerky next time Padre, ok?


It's the gun culture.

Also, to whoever posted it up there:

The NRA's argument is pro-"socialism?" If so, I might be willing to cross the aisle.

You guys can all have your guns so you can be the badass hero next time someone goes postal, and in return, you help me pay for health care (for if I get shot being the not-badass), mental health care (to prevent such things), welfare (for the poor & desperate who might turn to crime), low-end job benefits and pay (to make slaving in the shiattiest jobs preferable to welfare and crime), and real, legit rehabilitation programs and placement services for inmates (to give a real chance to end recidivism).

We'll all be happy, and gun crime will dwindle to crimes of passion and personal revenge.
 
2012-08-29 09:15:16 AM

Orgasmatron138: Thank god a human being was killed in the name of protecting material goods and money.


Can one more person post this nonsense, please?

I need one more to collect the whole set....
 
2012-08-29 09:15:38 AM

JRoo: [i21.photobucket.com image 300x300]


Try googling KNIFE attacks in those countries...
 
2012-08-29 09:16:16 AM

Kit Fister: Which is why one cannot judge...


And yet you seem to think that someone with the barest of instruction is better to judge the situation. Why is that?

This isn't a cop or sherrif doing the shooting, this isn't a law enforcement professional. Don't pretend that the average schmuck has a good handle on a situation like that.

This was not the case of someone defending their family against those with explicit intent to harm. It was the farking Dollar Store with two guys looking to take money.
 
2012-08-29 09:16:22 AM

Cinaed: I'm trying to decide whether or not robbing the Dollar Store is a despicable enough act that death is the appropriate penalty.

I mean, even in Saudia Arabia they don'd kill a man for theft.


The man wasn't killed for theft. He was shot because he was in the middle of committing a violent crime. Last year a man walked in to the Game Stop three blocks from my office and ordered everyone to the floor. He robbed the till then shot everyone in the store. When someone uses a gun to commit a crime then you have to assume they are prepared to use it.
 
2012-08-29 09:16:48 AM

Kit Fister: Cinaed: Whole Wheat: When they point guns in your face, professor. You have to be trolling to not understand this concept.

I'd rather understand 'why' they've got a gun to my face. For the ten bucks in my wallet? For my shoes? I don't mind losing a pair of twenty dollar sneakers if it means I don't have to kill a man.

Silly Jesus: Do you feel that you should be able to shoot someone who has a gun to your head?

Again, I'd rather know 'why'. And if the guy has a gun to my head, shooting him will probably result in him shooting me. Not sure how that benefits either party in that particular case.

Which is why one cannot judge what happens in the situation until one is in the situation. If simply handing over the goods will solve the problem, then by all means take that route. However, that doesn't always pacify the person committing the crime, and you may end up having to defend yourself anyway.

Why do you assume that presentation of a threat automatically means people will go "ZOMG OPEN FIRE?" and not use common sense as to whether or not it's warranted, justified, and a preferable option to just handing over the TV or the sneakers?


I remember when a Wendy's in was robbed at gunpoint after hours and five employees were taken to the freezer and executed one by one. Opening the register didn't work for these guys, why would you assume it would for you? I have a family an employer, and many people that rely on me daily. I have to assume that the robber means to harm me. That is the danger of his profession.
 
2012-08-29 09:17:21 AM

fisker: You can kill people for robbing a store?


No, you can kill someone threatening you with a gun.
 
2012-08-29 09:17:46 AM

Silly Jesus: OK, the derp is just too strong. I'll just pass on conversing with you in this thread and leave you visible in the hopes that you have something reasonable to contribute in some other thread.


Well then you go on cheerleading the death of two men who, at the most, deserved time in a prison and some rehabilitation rather than being killed.
 
2012-08-29 09:18:05 AM

jbabbler: No, you can kill someone threatening you, or others, with a gun.


Fixed.
 
2012-08-29 09:18:33 AM

craigdamage: Loaded Six String I can't believe how many people are going to claim that the armed customer shot the armed robber in defense of the store's money. It actually boggles my mind.

Second.


INB4 the stupidity, and yet...

Orgasmatron138: Thank god a human being was killed in the name of protecting material goods and money.


This is one of the dumbest things I've ever seen posted in a Fark thread.
 
2012-08-29 09:19:45 AM

ModernLuddite: Hey now, a man died so that Dollar General could keep their 40$. A terrible tragedy has been averted!

//Just kidding. I love it when old men shoot blacks.
///I'm going to masturbate and watch the RNC now.


For what readily do you believe armed robbery to be acceptable behaviour?
 
2012-08-29 09:20:38 AM

Whole Wheat: Loaded Six String: Whole Wheat: Loaded Six String: Su-Su-Sudo: Yeah, sorry, I didnt see the other link where it said they had guns. Who robs a dollar store, with guns?

Someone dumb, desperate, failed by society, or all three unfortunately.

For some reason, I think that if the starving waif, left behind by society as he was, had chosen to steal groceries from Kroger instead of getting all gangsta, people wouldn't have gotten all shooty. But let's blame society.

Society isn't to blame, his actions were his. The reasons driving him to this action however, can and should be determined to see if further crime can be reduced by addressing them. It is possible to study the reasons why someone does something without claiming they are an excuse for those actions.

Dammitsomuch. You just got greened. Don't get me wrong, I am pretty liberal in my thinking. I think that money is much better spent on education, prevention, and rehabilitation, than it is on incarceration and punishment. But at the moment someone is held at gunpoint, that really doesn't matter anymore.

And now for my herp-derp moment, I see that is what you were saying in the first place.


Thanks for the green :D
 
2012-08-29 09:21:10 AM

cassanovascotian: USP .45: Begone buffoon, begone.

gosh, gun advocates are always raising the level of intellectual discourse ....

USP .45: so you're equating the prevalence of gangs and organized crime in the United States with that of Canada

per capita? yeah. why not?


Well that would show a complete lack of understanding of the situation and statistics so... oh I see.
 
2012-08-29 09:21:59 AM

cassanovascotian: USP .45: Begone buffoon, begone.

gosh, gun advocates are always raising the level of intellectual discourse ....

USP .45: so you're equating the prevalence of gangs and organized crime in the United States with that of Canada

per capita? yeah. why not?


welcome to Fark.jpg

per capita Canada doesn't compare, and in total numbers Canada doesn't compare. you're embarrassing yourself.

http://www.fbi.gov/stats-services/publications/2011-national-gang-th re at-assessment
 
2012-08-29 09:22:24 AM

Cinaed: Callous: Another one that doesn't know the difference between penalty and consequence.

Such as 5-10 in a prison? The life long stigma of being a felon?
You'll have to explain how shooting a man down is somehow more worthy a reaction.


No, you explain why it's a more worthy action to allow the innocent person to be murdered.
 
2012-08-29 09:22:44 AM

jbabbler: The man wasn't killed for theft. He was shot because he was in the middle of committing a violent crime.


Ah, so it's violent crime that deserves death without benefit of judge or jury then?

And a CSB moment.

Whole Wheat: I remember when a Wendy's in was robbed at gunpoint...


CSB. And the average citizen will be able to make the distinction between robbery and robbery-with-intent-to-execute?
 
2012-08-29 09:22:56 AM

jbabbler: Cinaed: I'm trying to decide whether or not robbing the Dollar Store is a despicable enough act that death is the appropriate penalty.

I mean, even in Saudia Arabia they don'd kill a man for theft.

The man wasn't killed for theft. He was shot because he was in the middle of committing a violent crime. Last year a man walked in to the Game Stop three blocks from my office and ordered everyone to the floor. He robbed the till then shot everyone in the store. When someone uses a gun to commit a crime then you have to assume they are prepared to use it.


Yeah, but they didn't know if he was going to commit a violent crime until he pulled the trigger. Up until that point, they did the right thing by complying with his demands.
 
2012-08-29 09:23:29 AM

Cinaed: This was not the case of someone defending their family against those with explicit intent to harm. It was the farking Dollar Store with two guys looking to take money.armed perpetrators placing innocent individuals in imminent danger.


FTFY
 
2012-08-29 09:23:42 AM

DingleberryMoose: This is one of the dumbest things I've ever seen posted in a Fark thread.


So it's okay to kill someone over property and money? Good to know.
 
2012-08-29 09:23:57 AM

Mija: A man is dead over a little money and I bet the killer calls himself a Christian. As a responsible gun owner and a Christian I would not kill someone over money or property. Thou shalt not kill is not an option, it's a commandment. A gun is to protect your life. Nothing short of that is acceptable.


I doubt you're actually a christian. More likely you're trying to be clever. The commandment is 'Thou shalt not murder' in any case. The dead perp put people's lives at risk by pulling a weapon- that's what lead to him being room-temperature. The old man didn't shoot him for shoplifting.
 
2012-08-29 09:24:01 AM

Loaded Six String: Whole Wheat: Loaded Six String: Whole Wheat: Loaded Six String: Su-Su-Sudo: Yeah, sorry, I didnt see the other link where it said they had guns. Who robs a dollar store, with guns?

Someone dumb, desperate, failed by society, or all three unfortunately.

For some reason, I think that if the starving waif, left behind by society as he was, had chosen to steal groceries from Kroger instead of getting all gangsta, people wouldn't have gotten all shooty. But let's blame society.

Society isn't to blame, his actions were his. The reasons driving him to this action however, can and should be determined to see if further crime can be reduced by addressing them. It is possible to study the reasons why someone does something without claiming they are an excuse for those actions.

Dammitsomuch. You just got greened. Don't get me wrong, I am pretty liberal in my thinking. I think that money is much better spent on education, prevention, and rehabilitation, than it is on incarceration and punishment. But at the moment someone is held at gunpoint, that really doesn't matter anymore.

And now for my herp-derp moment, I see that is what you were saying in the first place.

Thanks for the green :D


Aww, I didn't get a green :(
 
2012-08-29 09:24:10 AM

jbabbler: Your point is valid, however, the numbers you show only reinforce why a regular Joe might want to carry a firearm in the first place. If this many people are being murdered I want to be prepared. I do a lot of running and when I run in the rural areas where I know there are a lot of dogs that are not in fenced yards or on leashes I carry an asp in case I am attacked. I have had to use it twice or have my legs chewed on by an angry canine.

If there were a magic button somewhere that would make all guns magically disappear then I would be ok with not having one myself. However, as long as the thugs have them I sure as hell want one too. I carry a gun because a police officer is just too damn heavy.


sigh.. and that's the vicious circle. On an individual level, what you said makes perfect sense -if everyone else is packing, then you need to carry too. I get that, and wouldn't criticize your personal decision to carry.

It is possible to get out of this loop though... it will take some time, but think of the rewards that would eventually come down the pipe a decade or two after banning handguns. 

I don't live in the States anymore, but if I did, I'd be willing to take the risk of being caught without heat and losing my wallet if I knew my kids could grow up in a place without those goddamn things around at all.
 
2012-08-29 09:24:31 AM

cassanovascotian: Loaded Six String: Should we find a nice infographic on how many people were killed with knives in each of these countries as well? Violent crime is violent crime regardless of the method. There is a root cause, or indeed many, and guns are not it.

Sure, Let's do that. Comparisons against Europe would involve cultural differences, so that complicates things, but Canada and the US are pretty similar -the only major difference being gun control legislation.... and what's the result?

[2.bp.blogspot.com image 850x615]

yeah, so ... I'm gonna go ahead and say that guns have a lot to do with it.


The gun laws are not that dis-similar between Canada and the US. But, I wonder what else it could be. Oh, I know. Drug laws.
 
2012-08-29 09:24:42 AM
ITT: A lot of 'every life is precious' shiatheads who've never seen any of the few dozen security footage videos posted to LiveLeak and TheYNC of armed robbers killing employees/customers in cold blood over a few dollars or some trinkets.
 
2012-08-29 09:25:48 AM

Cinaed: jbabbler: The man wasn't killed for theft. He was shot because he was in the middle of committing a violent crime.

Ah, so it's violent crime that deserves death without benefit of judge or jury then?

And a CSB moment.

Whole Wheat: I remember when a Wendy's in was robbed at gunpoint...

CSB. And the average citizen will be able to make the distinction between robbery and robbery-with-intent-to-execute?


Doesn't matter. guy has a gun and acts in a threatening manner, it's safe to assume he's going to use it, and if it's feasible to do so, you're right and justified in defending yourself. That's why the standard for self defense is *reasonable belief*.
 
2012-08-29 09:26:18 AM

jbabbler: themeaningoflifeisnot: I wonder what most cops would say if you asked them what an armed civilian should do when faced with TWO armed robbers holding someone at gunpoint with other people in the store? I would bet that "take them both on yourself" would not be considered a prudent decision.

The cops aren't there to protect you. They show up after the crime has been committed and try and figure out what happened. In fact, the SCOTUS has plainly stated that the police have no obligation to protect anyone.


The SCOTUS cannot relieve me of that obligation, regardless of what they or you think.

As far as the original question it's a firm "depends". The vast number of armed robberies result with the suspects fleeing with little or no injuries to the victims. So basic math would lead you to believe to stay all fonzi and let them leave. You might never have the opportunity to safely draw and fire.

But let's say their backs are turned to you screaming that they are going to kill everyone in the store. You can effectively articulate that you were in fear for you life, had no ability to escape, and deadly force was the most reasonable action.
 
2012-08-29 09:27:05 AM

cassanovascotian: jbabbler: Your point is valid, however, the numbers you show only reinforce why a regular Joe might want to carry a firearm in the first place. If this many people are being murdered I want to be prepared. I do a lot of running and when I run in the rural areas where I know there are a lot of dogs that are not in fenced yards or on leashes I carry an asp in case I am attacked. I have had to use it twice or have my legs chewed on by an angry canine.

If there were a magic button somewhere that would make all guns magically disappear then I would be ok with not having one myself. However, as long as the thugs have them I sure as hell want one too. I carry a gun because a police officer is just too damn heavy.

sigh.. and that's the vicious circle. On an individual level, what you said makes perfect sense -if everyone else is packing, then you need to carry too. I get that, and wouldn't criticize your personal decision to carry.

It is possible to get out of this loop though... it will take some time, but think of the rewards that would eventually come down the pipe a decade or two after banning handguns. 

I don't live in the States anymore, but if I did, I'd be willing to take the risk of being caught without heat and losing my wallet if I knew my kids could grow up in a place without those goddamn things around at all.


You do realize, of course, that handguns are legal (and legally possessed) in canada, right?
 
2012-08-29 09:27:12 AM
themeaningoflifeisnot

Wow, a little anxious that someone might undermine your hero of the hour? Of course robbery is robbery, even without a gun. Where did I say it wasn't? But a guy shooting an unarmed suspect doesn't have quite the cachet as defending life and property from an armed criminal, does it?

Let's not pretend you hoplophobes don't dismiss cases where law abiding gun owners stop armed shooters. You aren't even sure these cowards weren't armed and you're trying your damnedest to smear this guy.
 
2012-08-29 09:27:39 AM

Mija: A man is dead over a little money and I bet the killer calls himself a Christian. As a responsible gun owner and a Christian I would not kill someone over money or property. Thou shalt not kill is not an option, it's a commandment. A gun is to protect your life. Nothing short of that is acceptable.


You apparently didn't take into account the threat to the clerk's life by having a gun pointed at them, regardless of whether it was for the money or out of pure malice a threat is a threat.
 
2012-08-29 09:29:27 AM

Cinaed: DingleberryMoose: This is one of the dumbest things I've ever seen posted in a Fark thread.

So it's okay to kill someone over property and money? Good to know.


In the state where I reside it's legal to do so, but that isn't the real issue. The issue here isn't property or money, it's the imminent threat of store personnel or bystanders being killed by the robbers. Are you deliberately missing the point or just really obtuse? I've been robbed at gunpoint twice, it isn't pleasant. In both instances, there was no way the robber could get more than $50 or so.
 
2012-08-29 09:29:38 AM

SirDigbyChickenCaesar: jbabbler: themeaningoflifeisnot: I wonder what most cops would say if you asked them what an armed civilian should do when faced with TWO armed robbers holding someone at gunpoint with other people in the store? I would bet that "take them both on yourself" would not be considered a prudent decision.

The cops aren't there to protect you. They show up after the crime has been committed and try and figure out what happened. In fact, the SCOTUS has plainly stated that the police have no obligation to protect anyone.

The SCOTUS cannot relieve me of that obligation, regardless of what they or you think.

As far as the original question it's a firm "depends". The vast number of armed robberies result with the suspects fleeing with little or no injuries to the victims. So basic math would lead you to believe to stay all fonzi and let them leave. You might never have the opportunity to safely draw and fire.

But let's say their backs are turned to you screaming that they are going to kill everyone in the store. You can effectively articulate that you were in fear for you life, had no ability to escape, and deadly force was the most reasonable action.


You may see it as your obligation, but that doesn't equate to what the SCOTUS ruling meant. You must admit that you can't be everywhere all the time. No matter how many cops there are, it's just not possible without living in a police state. Therefore, the primary onus for protection lands on the person. If cops can protect people, great.

I agree with the rest of your statement however.
 
2012-08-29 09:30:06 AM

Cinaed: jbabbler: The man wasn't killed for theft. He was shot because he was in the middle of committing a violent crime.

Ah, so it's violent crime that deserves death without benefit of judge or jury then?

And a CSB moment.

Whole Wheat: I remember when a Wendy's in was robbed at gunpoint...

CSB. And the average citizen will be able to make the distinction between robbery and robbery-with-intent-to-execute?


They can't. That's the point. Am I being trolled? I am easily trollable. Maybe I just don't understand your point. What if the olds hadn't acted, and the robber killed everyone?
 
2012-08-29 09:31:22 AM

Cinaed: DingleberryMoose: This is one of the dumbest things I've ever seen posted in a Fark thread.

So it's okay to kill someone over property and money? Good to know.


Well, yeah. In FLA you are justified in using deadly force in defense of a forcible robbery. Here, it was not only a forcible robbery, but also threatened application of deadly force against the store clerk (if the reported facts are true). As a legal matter, it appears that the civilian shooter was justified.

As an issue of morality? Well it can be debated til the end of time. Why don't you just state your religious or philosophical belief as to the shooter's actions and acknowledge the difference between your personal morality and the dictates of the law?
 
2012-08-29 09:31:41 AM

Loaded Six String: Mija: A man is dead over a little money and I bet the killer calls himself a Christian. As a responsible gun owner and a Christian I would not kill someone over money or property. Thou shalt not kill is not an option, it's a commandment. A gun is to protect your life. Nothing short of that is acceptable.

You apparently didn't take into account the threat to the clerk's life by having a gun pointed at them, regardless of whether it was for the money or out of pure malice a threat is a threat.


he also failed to note that the "thou shalt not kill" rule is a mistranslation, and the actual rule here is "thou shalt not do murder", which is completely different...

/not christian, and even I know that.
//Ask anyone who is fluent in Hebrew to give you the translation from the original hebrew text.
 
2012-08-29 09:31:41 AM
Even thought this is most often the result of this kind of thing. It is important that we twist the story to protect our freedom to be shot by criminals. You know, for safety.
 
2012-08-29 09:32:08 AM

BostonEMT: fisker:

People are SO SMART walking around with hand guns because they are PLANNING AHEAD!



Like wearing a seatbelt? Buying car insurance? Getting an alarm system or smoke detector? Going to the doctor for a checkup? Vaccinations? etc...
 
2012-08-29 09:32:08 AM

jbabbler: If there were a magic button somewhere that would make all guns magically disappear then I would be ok with not having one myself.


All the little old ladies who CCW (and there are quite a few) thank you. They'll be perfectly able to defend themselves against a 25 year old attacker while unarmed when all the guns magically go away.
 
2012-08-29 09:32:24 AM

Kit Fister: Doesn't matter.


So... you can read minds to, yes? You can just 'tell' that he's going to shoot?
And if you're someone with traumatic experiences who might react in a non-rational, if not explicitly irrational fashion.... well gee, that might have some bad assumptions there.
 
2012-08-29 09:32:32 AM

Whole Wheat: Cinaed: jbabbler: The man wasn't killed for theft. He was shot because he was in the middle of committing a violent crime.

Ah, so it's violent crime that deserves death without benefit of judge or jury then?

And a CSB moment.

Whole Wheat: I remember when a Wendy's in was robbed at gunpoint...

CSB. And the average citizen will be able to make the distinction between robbery and robbery-with-intent-to-execute?

They can't. That's the point. Am I being trolled? I am easily trollable. Maybe I just don't understand your point. What if the olds hadn't acted, and the robber killed everyone?


yeah, he's either retarded or just trolling.
 
2012-08-29 09:32:38 AM

david_gaithersburg: fisker: You can kill people for robbing a store?

.
.
Yes. It makes you think twice about your plans for this evening. Florida, where sanity and logic prevails, well, at least in the coastal areas, the coastal areas south of Tamp Bay.


Zee Germans?
 
2012-08-29 09:32:55 AM

Kit Fister: Ask anyone who is fluent in Hebrew to give you the translation from the original hebrew text


NPR had a Jewish scholar (From Jewtopia) inform us that the 10 commandments were actually the 12(I think) suggestions.
 
2012-08-29 09:34:06 AM

Whole Wheat: CSB. And the average citizen will be able to make the distinction between robbery and robbery-with-intent-to-execute?

They can't. That's the point. Am I being trolled? I am easily trollable. Maybe I just don't understand your point. What if the olds hadn't acted, and the robber killed everyone?


My point is you're assuming a great deal about a potential criminal's intent and actions and are willing see people shot dead.
 
2012-08-29 09:34:07 AM

Cinaed: jbabbler: The man wasn't killed for theft. He was shot because he was in the middle of committing a violent crime.

Ah, so it's violent crime that deserves death without benefit of judge or jury then?

And a CSB moment.

Whole Wheat: I remember when a Wendy's in was robbed at gunpoint...

CSB. And the average citizen will be able to make the distinction between robbery and robbery-with-intent-to-execute?


Why does someone who simply pets a skunk deserve a horrific wasting death?

At most they should simply be scolded for touching wild animals known to be vectors for rabies transmission.

Yet you have no problem sentencing these people, sometimes just children, to a death sentence just because they touched the wrong animal.

Also, why do you feel that rock climbers deserve to fall to their deaths?
 
2012-08-29 09:35:20 AM

OnlyM3: themeaningoflifeisnot

Wow, a little anxious that someone might undermine your hero of the hour? Of course robbery is robbery, even without a gun. Where did I say it wasn't? But a guy shooting an unarmed suspect doesn't have quite the cachet as defending life and property from an armed criminal, does it?
Let's not pretend you hoplophobes don't dismiss cases where law abiding gun owners stop armed shooters. You aren't even sure these cowards weren't armed and you're trying your damnedest to smear this guy.


Read the thread, dipshiat, starting with the response of the TFer I was replying to wherein he acknowledged that he may have misinterpreted my query as to whether the robbers were armed because the original linked story did not contain that information.

Or are you too much of an asshole to be bothered with understanding the context of comments you leap to shiat on?
 
2012-08-29 09:35:56 AM

Cinaed: Kit Fister: Doesn't matter.

So... you can read minds to, yes? You can just 'tell' that he's going to shoot?
And if you're someone with traumatic experiences who might react in a non-rational, if not explicitly irrational fashion.... well gee, that might have some bad assumptions there.


Again, doesn't matter. He's got a gun out, he's yelling about using it. Odds aren't that he's just being silly.

Reminds me of this quote:
"how did you know he intended to rape the woman?"
"Well, when you're naked, chasing a woman with a hardon and a butcher knife, it's unlikely he's just asking her for a cup of sugar..."

Anyway, done with you. I'm not going to bother hoping you'll contribute something worthwhile in another thread.
 
2012-08-29 09:36:41 AM

cassanovascotian: jbabbler: Your point is valid, however, the numbers you show only reinforce why a regular Joe might want to carry a firearm in the first place. If this many people are being murdered I want to be prepared. I do a lot of running and when I run in the rural areas where I know there are a lot of dogs that are not in fenced yards or on leashes I carry an asp in case I am attacked. I have had to use it twice or have my legs chewed on by an angry canine.

If there were a magic button somewhere that would make all guns magically disappear then I would be ok with not having one myself. However, as long as the thugs have them I sure as hell want one too. I carry a gun because a police officer is just too damn heavy.

sigh.. and that's the vicious circle. On an individual level, what you said makes perfect sense -if everyone else is packing, then you need to carry too. I get that, and wouldn't criticize your personal decision to carry.

It is possible to get out of this loop though... it will take some time, but think of the rewards that would eventually come down the pipe a decade or two after banning handguns. 

I don't live in the States anymore, but if I did, I'd be willing to take the risk of being caught without heat and losing my wallet if I knew my kids could grow up in a place without those goddamn things around at all.


Removing all handguns everywhere would reduce gun crime to zero, but without addressing the root cause of the gun crime, it would then become violent crime perpetrated in another fashion. The amount of lives saved would be statistacally irrelevant. Crime needs to be addressed, not the methodology.
 
2012-08-29 09:36:58 AM
So what I'm getting from this thread is basically thus, if someone comes up to me and sais "give me your money or im going to kick your ass", and I don't feel I'm strong enough physically to stop him without a weapon, then I have to just give him my money for being a pansy.

I was one of the people arguing against individuals using guns in a situation like the Aurora theater shooting. This is a completely different animal. The guy was not in a dark crowded smoke filled theater with no idea where his rounds might end up if he missed. This seems pretty legit to me. Most laws governing CCW say that you can only use the gun if you feel like you, or someone in your immediate vicinity's life is in danger, they say nothing about the other person being armed. If you don't think an unarmed person can kill you, let me introduce you to liveleak. I dont know about other states, but in Oklahoma you cant use the gun as a deterrent, brandishing is illegal even for a CCW holder.
 
2012-08-29 09:36:59 AM

Cinaed: My point is you're assuming a great deal about a potential criminal's intent and actions and are willing see people shot dead.


That's a valid point. If I see someone (for example, a robber) threatening someone else (for example, a cashier) with a weapon, I assume the person with the weapon willing to use it. I don't mind a bit seeing the person with the weapon shot dead. YMMV.
 
Displayed 50 of 754 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report