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 755
    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»



755 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 08:20:02 AM

cajunns: so this dirty harry wannabee decides that a human life is cheaper than the contents of the till at Dollar General.
What's heroic about that; if anything


you know how I know you're using an iPad?
 
2012-08-29 08:21:12 AM

I'm an excellent driver: Price of Life in the USA - $0


Really? This guy risked a potentially long period of incarceration if the police decided to charge him to save the life of someone he likely didn't even know. Sounds like it's valuable to me.....oh wait, troll...
 
2012-08-29 08:21:13 AM

Su-Su-Sudo: PreMortem

violentsalvation: themeaningoflifeisnot: Dd either of the robbers display a firearm? The article doesn't mention anything about that.

So if they didn't, they are proving that a firearm is not needed to commit a violent felony, just as gun rights advocates have been saying all along. It is bad people, not bad guns. Thank you for you contribution and failed attempt at a talking point.

Outstanding, I can satisfy my bloodthirst by waiting in convenience stores in seedy neighborhoods. Just wait for someone to try and rob it with a milk crate. 

I'm just glad we have these fine old people with guns to act as Judge, Jury, and Executioner waiting around. It makes me feel really safe. Actually no it doesn't. I own firearms, but I also live in California where we understand that the second worse thing you can do with a gun is shoot somebody else with it, just behind shooting yourself. Last thing we need is more RoboCop style justice, where people are murdered with impunity for crimes that don't really beg for the death penalty. Screw Florida, and Screw their gun carrying, insane population.


So shooting someone before they get the chance to shoot the clerk that they have the gun pointed at is robocop vigilante justice and is a bad thing?

Only on Fark will you find people who think that the armed robbers got treated too harshly.
 
2012-08-29 08:21:47 AM

I'm an excellent driver: Handgun - $450
Ammunition - $3
Price of Life in the USA - $0

whatever the victim of the armed robber had in their wallet.

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.
 
2012-08-29 08:23:49 AM

Su-Su-Sudo

I'm just glad we have these fine old people with guns to act as Judge, Jury, and Executioner waiting around. It makes me feel really safe. Actually no it doesn't. I own firearms, but I also live in California where we understand that the second worse thing you can do with a gun is shoot somebody else with it, just behind shooting yourself. Last thing we need is more RoboCop style justice, where people are murdered with impunity for crimes that don't really beg for the death penalty. Screw Florida, and Screw their gun carrying, insane population.


You seem to be confusing Criminal Law with Natural Law- the latter including, among other things, the right to self defense, and by extension, the defense of innocents.
 
2012-08-29 08:25:28 AM
Fundamentally this debate comes down to a question of whether you want individuals to take responsibility for enforcing social control - for example, by using their personal fire arms to mete out lethal force - or whether you want there to be a larger process by which people are presumed innocent until proven guilty, allowed competent professional representation, and tried by a jury of their peers overseen by a professional judge. It's a question of every-man-for-himself vigilantism versus a justice system with checks and balances. I would wager that the justice system with checks and balances model results in a lot less indiscriminate exercise of power and a lot lower false-positive conviction rate.

Of course, this is America, so guns are good, but only in the hands of rugged individualists who use them to protect their private property and the private property of others (by the way, is Grampa Gun going to send a bill for security services rendered to the owner of the store?). And, also being America, the justice system is not nearly just.

Why do you people have such a hard on for firearms?
 
2012-08-29 08:25:41 AM

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.
 
2012-08-29 08:25:49 AM
i.imgur.com
 
2012-08-29 08:26:01 AM

BronyMedic: MythDragon: Dude, if you can conceal a compound bow, then by God, I say go for it. In fact, I'd love to see the face of some thug when you go all Hawkeye on him.

I imagine it would go something like this: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hvQJh-nS9TI


Try this one for archery badassery


/Oh and Father_Jack when most people refer to a culture they mean the people, government and institutions of the nation, you are arguing semantics which is asinine. The Swiss are a lot like Americans as far as firearms go, the city dwellers see guns as useless relics of a bygone era and want them outlawed, the rural areas tend to see them as either facts of life or cherished traditions that need maintaining. As to how I obtained my permit, you will find a lot of leeway in the laws if you are ex military assisting in the dismantling of the Saint-Maurice fortifications (and happen to be friendly with the local officials) waivers can be obtained, exemptions granted as long as the Germanic obsessive need for paperwork is met.
 
2012-08-29 08:26:03 AM
Yeah, sorry, I didnt see the other link where it said they had guns. Who robs a dollar store, with guns?
 
2012-08-29 08:26:53 AM

BostonEMT: fisker:

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

If one, JUST ONE of those rednecks would have adopted that pathetic black child WHEN IT WAS BORN we wouldn't be having this problem.

THAT is how you plan ahead.

Riiiiiight.... because baby-daddy wearing a jimmy in the first place to PREVENT an orphan child wouldn't be planning ahead, would it?


Baby daddy should have been shot dead by the grandfather of the hero of this dollar store incident years ago.

WHAT?
 
2012-08-29 08:26:54 AM

Corvus: Cool can I link the link when gun fight broke out at a party recently here killing lots of innocent victims from stray bullet fire?


Ha, no. We know that in America, all gun owners are responsible, and would never do anything with their weapons to cause unneeded injury and/or death.
 
2012-08-29 08:27:36 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.


You seem to fail to grasp the difference between a penalty and a consequence. You threaten someone's life with a weapon while committing a crime the consequence may very well be death when someone intervenes on behalf of the person you are threatening to murder.
 
2012-08-29 08:28:15 AM

Silly Jesus: So shooting someone before they get the chance to shoot the clerk that they have the gun pointed at is robocop vigilante justice and is a bad thing?

Only on Fark will you find people who think that the armed robbers got treated too harshly.


Actually, more accurately, because this story has no way to point out how the gun involved was bad or the guy was a psycho killer and able to be held up as the poster child of why guns should be banned, the guy who acted to save his own life and the lives of the clerks is demonized for being a vigilante and the act of self defense/defense of others is attacked instead.

It's sort of like attacking a good samaritan at an accident since the guy was blocking traffic or some such.

If a person has a gun out and is aiming it at another person, no statistics in the world can read the person's mind or intentions, and assuming that they're not going to shoot someone or injure a bystander based on said statistics is stupid.
 
2012-08-29 08:28:37 AM

Su-Su-Sudo: PreMortem

violentsalvation: themeaningoflifeisnot: Dd either of the robbers display a firearm? The article doesn't mention anything about that.

So if they didn't, they are proving that a firearm is not needed to commit a violent felony, just as gun rights advocates have been saying all along. It is bad people, not bad guns. Thank you for you contribution and failed attempt at a talking point.

Outstanding, I can satisfy my bloodthirst by waiting in convenience stores in seedy neighborhoods. Just wait for someone to try and rob it with a milk crate. 

I'm just glad we have these fine old people with guns to act as Judge, Jury, and Executioner waiting around. It makes me feel really safe. Actually no it doesn't. I own firearms, but I also live in California where we understand that the second worse thing you can do with a gun is shoot somebody else with it, just behind shooting yourself. Last thing we need is more RoboCop style justice, where people are murdered with impunity for crimes that don't really beg for the death penalty. Screw Florida, and Screw their gun carrying, insane population.


Armed robbery is a forceable fealony, which is deemed to be an appropriate situation to utilize deadly force to end, in most parts of the world even California. You're discounting how heinous assault with a deadly weapon (pulling a firearm on someone to steal their property) is, and that's intellectually disonest. On top of that, you're belittling the entire population of a state because you disagree with the actions of this one person, or perhaps many, but ultimately very few of the population. Your outrage is unbecoming.
 
2012-08-29 08:28:44 AM

misanthropologist: Fundamentally this debate comes down to a question of whether you want individuals to take responsibility for enforcing social control - for example, by using their personal fire arms to mete out lethal force - or whether you want there to be a larger process by which people are presumed innocent until proven guilty, allowed competent professional representation, and tried by a jury of their peers overseen by a professional judge. It's a question of every-man-for-himself vigilantism versus a justice system with checks and balances. I would wager that the justice system with checks and balances model results in a lot less indiscriminate exercise of power and a lot lower false-positive conviction rate.

Of course, this is America, so guns are good, but only in the hands of rugged individualists who use them to protect their private property and the private property of others (by the way, is Grampa Gun going to send a bill for security services rendered to the owner of the store?). And, also being America, the justice system is not nearly just.

Why do you people have such a hard on for firearms?


You can't possibly be serious.

You don't see the imminent threat of having a gun in your face? You can't see that some situations dictate that you don't wait for a jury trial? Is self-defense a concept that you deem to be vile?
 
2012-08-29 08:29:53 AM

Loaded Six String: fisker: We need to start breeding African-American robbers so all the cool white people in this thread can have things to shoot at.

Oh I forgot, that's already happening.

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

If one, JUST ONE of those rednecks would have adopted that pathetic black child WHEN IT WAS BORN we wouldn't be having this problem.

THAT is how you plan ahead.

While I agree that more kids in the foster care system should be adopted by loving parents who aren't paid by the state to care for them, the rest of your post is bad and you should feel bad.


I'm feeling pretty good about my post!
 
2012-08-29 08:30:18 AM
I'm very disappointed that the old man wasn't able to get off shots quick enough to rid the world of the second armed robber.
 
2012-08-29 08:31:12 AM

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.
 
2012-08-29 08:31:14 AM

cajunns: so this dirty harry wannabee decides that a human life is cheaper than the contents of the till at Dollar General.
What's heroic about that; if anything


i.qkme.me
 
2012-08-29 08:31:16 AM

Su-Su-Sudo: PreMortem

violentsalvation: themeaningoflifeisnot: Dd either of the robbers display a firearm? The article doesn't mention anything about that.

So if they didn't, they are proving that a firearm is not needed to commit a violent felony, just as gun rights advocates have been saying all along. It is bad people, not bad guns. Thank you for you contribution and failed attempt at a talking point.

Outstanding, I can satisfy my bloodthirst by waiting in convenience stores in seedy neighborhoods. Just wait for someone to try and rob it with a milk crate. 

I'm just glad we have these fine old people with guns to act as Judge, Jury, and Executioner waiting around. It makes me feel really safe. Actually no it doesn't. I own firearms, but I also live in California where we understand that the second worse thing you can do with a gun is shoot somebody else with it, just behind shooting yourself. Last thing we need is more RoboCop style justice, where people are murdered with impunity for crimes that don't really beg for the death penalty. Screw Florida, and Screw their gun carrying, insane population.


I couldn't imagine snuffing out a life for an attempted robbery. Although, if it were my wife or kid or brother behind the counter with a gun pointed in his or her face, I would be thanking the olds right now for intervening.

It would be nice if we knew the perp's intent with the gun, but we don't. They also don't have a code of honor. How many people are killed by robbers because they wanted to go all Fiddy-cent? I would not want to be put in this situation, because I would probably act the same as the olds, and, as previously mentioned, have nightmares for the rest of my life wondering if I had done the right thing. On the other hand, I could never forgive myself if I had a CCW and stood by idly as an innocent person was murdered. The person behind the counter was innocent; the robber wasn't.
 
2012-08-29 08:33:03 AM
www.blackshards.com
 
2012-08-29 08:33:17 AM

misanthropologist: Fundamentally this debate comes down to a question of whether you want individuals to take responsibility for enforcing social control - for example, by using their personal fire arms to mete out lethal force - or whether you want there to be a larger process by which people are presumed innocent until proven guilty, allowed competent professional representation, and tried by a jury of their peers overseen by a professional judge. It's a question of every-man-for-himself vigilantism versus a justice system with checks and balances. I would wager that the justice system with checks and balances model results in a lot less indiscriminate exercise of power and a lot lower false-positive conviction rate.

Of course, this is America, so guns are good, but only in the hands of rugged individualists who use them to protect their private property and the private property of others (by the way, is Grampa Gun going to send a bill for security services rendered to the owner of the store?). And, also being America, the justice system is not nearly just.

Why do you people have such a hard on for firearms?


Vigilante justice doesn't apply to crimes dangerous to the life of oneself or another being witnessed in progress, self preservation does. You're putting too much faith in the criminal justice system to save lives at the moment they are in danger.

Why do you believe someone who is armed is automatically armed and dangerous, whether or not their firearm is currently pointed at someone?
 
2012-08-29 08:33:25 AM
From TFA second paragraph: "All of the sudden..." Really?? All of the sudden. Is that even English?
 
2012-08-29 08:34:14 AM

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.


You mean like the two farking Jedi at the Empire State building?
 
2012-08-29 08:34:20 AM

elguerodiablo: Thank god he was there to kill someone so some corporation saved the $50 they had in the register.


The robbers equated the clerk's life with the $50 in the register.
 
2012-08-29 08:34:39 AM

misanthropologist: Fundamentally this debate comes down to a question of whether you want individuals to take responsibility for enforcing social control - for example, by using their personal fire arms to mete out lethal force - or whether you want there to be a larger process by which people are presumed innocent until proven guilty, allowed competent professional representation, and tried by a jury of their peers overseen by a professional judge. It's a question of every-man-for-himself vigilantism versus a justice system with checks and balances. I would wager that the justice system with checks and balances model results in a lot less indiscriminate exercise of power and a lot lower false-positive conviction rate.

Of course, this is America, so guns are good, but only in the hands of rugged individualists who use them to protect their private property and the private property of others (by the way, is Grampa Gun going to send a bill for security services rendered to the owner of the store?). And, also being America, the justice system is not nearly just.

Why do you people have such a hard on for firearms?


If the person has a weapon pointed at me or someone I know to be innocent and is acting in a threatening manner, then it is equally my right to defend myself if necessary. Is it always the best choice? Nope. I've walked away in a couple of situations where I could have probably legally justified using a weapon. However, in some cases, it is the best choice out of a bad hand.

As to why we have "such a hardon for firearms", mostly because those of us who choose to carry and/or own firearms for the purpose of self defense, hunting, or sport do so because we recognize that it is our right to do so, that sporting purposes are activities that we enjoy much like collecting cars or riding horses, and ultimately we understand that in a dire situation, a cop may not always be handy to stop the guy.

I would also ask, if a cop is in this situation and defends himself, it's considered part of his job. If a non-law-enforcement civilian (cops are civilians, they are not an army) happens to be forced to make the same choice, it's considered a horrible vigilante crime? I don't understand that thought process. It is my right to defend myself from death or grave bodily harm, and i will do so with whatever force is necessary.
 
2012-08-29 08:35:00 AM

Whole Wheat: I couldn't imagine snuffing out a life for an attempted robbery. Although, if it were my wife or kid or brother behind the counter with a gun pointed in his or her face, I would be thanking the olds right now for intervening.

It would be nice if we knew the perp's intent with the gun, but we don't. They also don't have a code of honor. How many people are killed by robbers because they wanted to go all Fiddy-cent? I would not want to be put in this situation, because I would probably act the same as the olds, and, as previously mentioned, have nightmares for the rest of my life wondering if I had done the right thing. On the other hand, I could never forgive myself if I had a CCW and stood by idly as an innocent person was murdered. The person behind the counter was innocent; the robber wasn't.


Salient point emboldened. Grampa defended an innocent person from danger. Stopping the robbery was incidental.
 
2012-08-29 08:35:23 AM

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.
 
2012-08-29 08:36:19 AM
Loaded Six String

Smartest
Funniest
2012-08-29 08:28:37 AM
Su-Su-Sudo: PreMortem

violentsalvation: themeaningoflifeisnot: Dd either of the robbers display a firearm? The article doesn't mention anything about that.

So if they didn't, they are proving that a firearm is not needed to commit a violent felony, just as gun rights advocates have been saying all along. It is bad people, not bad guns. Thank you for you contribution and failed attempt at a talking point.

Outstanding, I can satisfy my bloodthirst by waiting in convenience stores in seedy neighborhoods. Just wait for someone to try and rob it with a milk crate.

I'm just glad we have these fine old people with guns to act as Judge, Jury, and Executioner waiting around. It makes me feel really safe. Actually no it doesn't. I own firearms, but I also live in California where we understand that the second worse thing you can do with a gun is shoot somebody else with it, just behind shooting yourself. Last thing we need is more RoboCop style justice, where people are murdered with impunity for crimes that don't really beg for the death penalty. Screw Florida, and Screw their gun carrying, insane population.

Armed robbery is a forceable fealony, which is deemed to be an appropriate situation to utilize deadly force to end, in most parts of the world even California. You're discounting how heinous assault with a deadly weapon (pulling a firearm on someone to steal their property) is, and that's intellectually disonest. On top of that, you're belittling the entire population of a state because you disagree with the actions of this one person, or perhaps many, but ultimately very few of the population. Your outrage is unbecoming.
 
2012-08-29 08:36:38 AM

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.
 
2012-08-29 08:36:50 AM

Loaded Six String: failed by society


Oh lord....
 
2012-08-29 08:37:36 AM
Sorry Six string, I was gonna refer you to my recant.
 
2012-08-29 08:37:48 AM

PreMortem: violentsalvation: themeaningoflifeisnot: Dd either of the robbers display a firearm? The article doesn't mention anything about that.

So if they didn't, they are proving that a firearm is not needed to commit a violent felony, just as gun rights advocates have been saying all along. It is bad people, not bad guns. Thank you for you contribution and failed attempt at a talking point.

Outstanding, I can satisfy my bloodthirst by waiting in convenience stores in seedy neighborhoods. Just wait for someone to try and rob it with a milk crate.


That job is already taken

i512.photobucket.com

/hot
/and special
 
2012-08-29 08:39:52 AM

IlGreven: Corvus: Cool can I link the link when gun fight broke out at a party recently here killing lots of innocent victims from stray bullet fire?

Ha, no. We know that in America, all gun owners are responsible, and would never do anything with their weapons to cause unneeded injury and/or death.


Firearms safety classes in high school would help reduce accidental/ negligent discharges, but asshats will be asshats, and will be appropriately punished for their actions. That's the way things have always been and should always be. If you're going to join in, bring something to the table aside from whargarbl.
 
2012-08-29 08:40:51 AM

The Muthaship: Loaded Six String: failed by society

Oh lord....


No, there's something to this. The welfare system we have in place in the US tends to encourage long-term dependency, fails to encourage paternal involvement with children, and rewards bastardy with increased welfare checks to the mother. We, as a society, have failed in our efforts because we have an idiotic welfare system which needs a major redesign.
 
2012-08-29 08:42:18 AM

Triumph: If he'd been at the Empire State Building, 9 people wouldn't have been shot by cops.


Because a dollar store late at night is the exact same thing as a crowded NYC sidewalk?
 
2012-08-29 08:43:59 AM

Breech Birth: From TFA second paragraph: "All of the sudden..." Really?? All of the sudden. Is that even English?


Well, for all intensive purposes I suppose so.

/Seriously though, many idioms are ruined by idiots.
 
2012-08-29 08:43:59 AM

violentsalvation: themeaningoflifeisnot: Dd either of the robbers display a firearm? The article doesn't mention anything about that.

So if they didn't, they are proving that a firearm is not needed to commit a violent felony, just as gun rights advocates have been saying all along. It is bad people, not bad guns. Thank you for you contribution and failed attempt at a talking point.


If a gun isnt needed to commit the robbery, then a gun shouldnt be needed to stop it.
 
2012-08-29 08:44:24 AM

DingleberryMoose: No, there's something to this.


I'm sure his grandma did the best she could.
 
2012-08-29 08:44:24 AM

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

yeah, so ... I'm gonna go ahead and say that guns have a lot to do with it.
 
2012-08-29 08:44:38 AM

DingleberryMoose: The Muthaship: Loaded Six String: failed by society

Oh lord....

No, there's something to this. The welfare system we have in place in the US tends to encourage long-term dependency, fails to encourage paternal involvement with children, and rewards bastardy with increased welfare checks to the mother. We, as a society, have failed in our efforts because we have an idiotic welfare system which needs a major redesign.


Where in the article does it say that he or his family was on welfare or are you just assuming this because he is was black?
 
2012-08-29 08:44:49 AM

Loaded Six String: Cinaed: Loaded Six String: ...and being that there is no effective rehabilitation program in place

And whose fault would that be, I wonder?

The creators of our judicial system who based it on puritanical values of punishment rather than rehabilitation?


And we can't fix that? We can't correct that? We can't educate them? We can't attempt to give them options beyond 'steal shiat, beat up people, etc'?

Granted, it might require some money, some people, and a willingness to look at people on the fringes of society with something other than disdain.

I am a firm believer in the idea that how we treat the least among us showcases just how Just and Righteous we truly are. A shame we don't nearly meet the self-image.
 
2012-08-29 08:45:36 AM

feckingmorons: Um, that doesn't fit the popular narrative. Please don't post things like this it will give a legally armed citizenry a good name.


Done in one.
 
2012-08-29 08:45:41 AM

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.
 
2012-08-29 08:48:10 AM

Su-Su-Sudo: Sorry Six string, I was gonna refer you to my recant.


No problem, I saw it. Painting everyone in the state of Florida as armed maniacs was still unbecoming though. Not that you have to justify yourself to me, I just disagree with broad statements disparaging a group of people because of their legislative stance on a piece of property and the right to self defense.
 
2012-08-29 08:48:56 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.


No, they also eat cheese curds. How do we know that the Canadian Government isn't putting some sort of anti-violence drugs in the cheese curds?
 
2012-08-29 08:49:23 AM

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 with. A no brainer.

The question I raise is whether law enforcement would generally advise a CCW holder to open fire when outnumbered by armed opponents and innocent bystanders are at risk. I think not.
 
2012-08-29 08:49:27 AM
For a while in the 90's Albuquerque had more bank robberies per capita than anywhere in the US. You could also legally walk around with a gun on your hip, although most people didn't know that.

One day this old man walks in to a bank with a .45 holstered like the old west. As he comes in he realizes he's walked in on a robbery. He decides to walk in a little sideways so they couldn't see the gun, waited until he had 2 clear shots and took out both of the robbers with a single shot each.
 
2012-08-29 08:49:40 AM
Choice comments from the the news article:

"nice shot, thats one more ghetto gopher that wont be voting for obama this november!"

"A black male! What a shocker. One of the many reasons why I carry a gun everywhere I go."

"Great Shot Gramps.....One Less Pavement Ape To Clog Up The Courts With. Now Go Cap The Other Chimp."

"They were trying to rob a Dollar General Store? What a couple of idiots!" ((This guy asserts that they were a couple. How could he possibly know that?))

"There will be one less gorilla in the mist now! WTG pops!"

"They will pin the dead coon on the coon that got away"
 
Displayed 50 of 755 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