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 09:37:09 AM

OnlyM3: you hoplophobes


seriously?... are you actually using that word that way? As if to imply that it is in any way analogous to homophobia or xenophobia etc?

It isn't.
Stop it.
 
2012-08-29 09:37:36 AM

Cinaed: the average citizen will be able to make the distinction between robbery and robbery-with-intent-to-execute?


They can't, and they shouldn't have to.
I'll get some flack for saying this, but as the situation sits: When cops fail to get to the troublemakers before the militia does, bad things are likely to happen.

The death of a robber is a bad thing, but he instigated the situation by threatening harm to innocent people. He saw it fit to wager their lives against the contents of a cash register, someone else saw it fit to wager his life the same way.

Its unfortunate, but the robber threw his hat into Darwin's playground when he pretended to be an Apex predator.
Sometimes the cost of a hunt going wrong is death.
 
2012-08-29 09:37:37 AM
quatchi: I'm pro gun, pro 2nd amendment and pro CC but I too would like to know what, if anything, these two robbers were armed with before qualifying this guy as any kind of hero.

No, you're not.

If you were, you'd be used to the fact that the msm does everything it can to leave out details. Details like the violent offenders were armed (as has been shown with other links to this story) and have a history of violent crime.
 
2012-08-29 09:37:54 AM

tsferg: 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.

Well its gotta work out well once in a while. Law of averages! Sometimes you get the robber and are a hero and sometimes you get the innocent little kid bystander and, well, you tried. Its cool


Some Average:

Armed citizens kill more crooks than do the police. Citizens shoot and kill at least twice as many criminals as police do every year and only 2 percent of civilian shootings involved an innocent person mistakenly identified as a criminal. The 'error rate' for the police, however, was 11 percent, more than five times as high."


Of the 2.5 million times citizens use their guns to defend themselves every year, the overwhelming majority merely brandish their gun or fire a warning shot to scare off their attackers. Less than 8% of the time, a citizen will kill or wound his/her attacker.

As many as 200,000 women use a gun every year to defend themselves against sexual abuse

Sources:

Point Blank: Guns and Violence in America, (1991) byDr. Kleck, ( a member of the ACLU, Amnesty International USA, and Common Cause.)

"Armed Resistance to Crime: The Prevalence and Nature of Self-Defense With a Gun," 86 The Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology, Northwestern University School of Law, 1 (Fall 1995)

Uniform Crime Reports, FBI, 2003
 
2012-08-29 09:39:03 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?


I would agree with you if the customer in the store saw the robbery and waited for it to end, then followed the bad guys home and executed them. This was not the case here. The armed citizen stopped an attack. It is no different then you fighting back if someone walked up and punched you in the face. You would not stand there and hope that the jury convicts him as he pummels your face. With your line of reasoning you would be guilty of assault and battery by defending yourself.
 
2012-08-29 09:39:13 AM

tsferg

Well its gotta work out well once in a while. Law of averages! Sometimes you get the robber and are a hero and sometimes you get the innocent little kid bystander and, well, you tried. Its cool

You failed to provide examples to your made up "facts".
 
2012-08-29 09:40:44 AM

kim jong-un: 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?


Sorry, you lost me with the whole skunk thing
 
2012-08-29 09:41:05 AM
It would seem that this election cycle has become a war of attrition.
 
2012-08-29 09:43:18 AM

cassanovascotian: OnlyM3: you hoplophobes

seriously?... are you actually using that word that way? As if to imply that it is in any way analogous to homophobia or xenophobia etc?

It isn't.
Stop it.


Actually, it is.

No.
 
2012-08-29 09:43:51 AM

kim jong-un: 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?


Okay, let's look at false equivalency...
-A skunk is an animal. People should be educated not to wander up to pet wildlife like it was the family cat
-Petting wildlife is equivalent to murder?
-I wasn't aware that mountains and cliffs were packing heat. I have a new respect for rock-climbers.
 
2012-08-29 09:44:38 AM

Cinaed: 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.


And you are assuming that another possible outcome, the death of someone not using violence and intimidation with the threat of death, is not actually a possible outcome. The defense of an innocent life is universally accepted as being preferable, even at the cost of the life of someone who is not innocent. And yes, the judicial system does consider everyone innocent until proven guilty, but the judicial system steps in after the outcome of a self defense situation, not while it is happening.
 
2012-08-29 09:45:50 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.


Someone approaches you and points a gun at you. They demand your wallet.

At this point you either believe they will shoot you, or not. If you don't believe they will shoot then you don't hand over your wallet. Lets assume you think they are serious and will shoot you if you don't comply.


So you now believe that this person has the means and will to kill you should you not submit to his demands.


Yet if for some reason you had the ability to stop him by shooting him, (let's say he wasn't paying attention.) You would instead TRUST this person, who you truly believe is willing and able to kill you, to consider your obligation fulfilled and go on his merry way?

You trust the person who threatened to kill you. I don't know what to say to that.
 
2012-08-29 09:45:52 AM

jbabbler: kim jong-un: 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?

Sorry, you lost me with the whole skunk thing


Skunks infected with rabies will often times not run away from humans as they would were they healthy, and kids who see skunks sometimes pet them and get bit, with the chance of contracting rabies which is a nasty, horrible way to die.
 
2012-08-29 09:46:48 AM

kim jong-un: 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.

Someone approaches you and points a gun at you. They demand your wallet.

At this point you either believe they will shoot you, or not. If you don't believe they will shoot then you don't hand over your wallet. Lets assume you think they are serious and will shoot you if you don't comply.


So you now believe that this person has the means and will to kill you should you not submit to his demands.


Yet if for some reason you had the ability to stop him by shooting him, (let's say he wasn't paying attention.) You would instead TRUST this person, who you truly believe is willing and able to kill you, to consider your obligation fulfilled and go on his merry way?

You trust the person who threatened to kill you. I don't know what to say to that.


Obvious troll is obvious. *shrug*
 
2012-08-29 09:47:56 AM

Kit Fister: 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


That is correct. The OP stated that "that the police have no obligation to protect anyone" which is categorically incorrect. Let's say I am on-duty and happen to walk into the local Stop-n-Rob to this scenario. By his logic I can turn around and leave because I don't have an obligation to act when in fact I do.
 
2012-08-29 09:49:39 AM
craigdamage

Great, So the dude saved a Dollar General. Too bad we never have armed citizens present at these random killing sprees. This is NO Dirty Harry "fantasy" as some limp-wrist types would assert. Just once I would like to hear about someone RETURNING FIRE. I wonder the outcome........

An intelligent man who has a question like yours researches it. You on the other hand are simply burying your head in the sand ignoring the multitude of examples.

In fact in several examples easily found (google is your friend) the mere presentation of a weapon halts the criminal activity with no need to "return fire". But keep ignoring the facts.
 
2012-08-29 09:50:50 AM

cassanovascotian: OnlyM3: you hoplophobes

seriously?... are you actually using that word that way? As if to imply that it is in any way analogous to homophobia or xenophobia etc?

It isn't.
Stop it.


Actually, homophobia and xenophobia are currently associated with irrational hatred more than irrational fear. Hoplophobia when used in context to irrational fear of weapons is correct, homophobia and xenophobia being used to describe irrational hatred is a perversion of the meaning of those words. Someone with an irrational hatred of homosexuals isn't homophobic, they're a bigot.
 
2012-08-29 09:51:45 AM

DingleberryMoose: 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.


Point taken but I would like to point out that I stated " I would be ok with not having one myself." I cannot speak for the little old ladies. The truth is, without guns, people will use knives, mace, wasp spray, bats, tickle-me-Elmos, etc... to commit crimes.
 
2012-08-29 09:52:26 AM

SirDigbyChickenCaesar: Kit Fister: 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

That is correct. The OP stated that "that the police have no obligation to protect anyone" which is categorically incorrect. Let's say I am on-duty and happen to walk into the local Stop-n-Rob to this scenario. By his logic I can turn around and leave because I don't have an obligation to act when in fact I do.


Right. The SCOTUS ruling simply means that the police don't have an obligation to follow around every person and act as bodyguards. They do have an obligation to intercede when they witness and are present for the act, as you state.

Anyway, yeah, we agree. :)
 
2012-08-29 09:52:59 AM

Loaded Six String: And you are assuming that another possible outcome.


There are a great number of potential outcomes. Assuming the worst and acting with deadly force, without the appropriate training and experience.
 
2012-08-29 09:53:09 AM

Father_Jack: BronyMedic: Father_Jack: damn someone got all butt hurty.

furhermore, no, i dont think its "the culture", at least not how i define the word. Thats such a general term as to be meaningless in this sense. Why are more americans killed with guns in the US than in Switzerland? "The Culture"? Thats, yknow, kinda derpy.

Considering guns are universally available as legal purchases in Switzerland, approaching the same level - if not exceeding - of ownership as the per person gun ownership of the United States - culture is definitely a factor.

But you're trying to say the exact same culture as the United States exists in Switzerland.

Where am i saying that? I don't mean to give the impression that im saying that at all.

Im trying to argue that I believe the difference in crime is due to the strength of swiss institutions and the society they've built which keeps people from become the sort of desperate people who seem to commit a good portion of the gun crime in the US. Admittedly, we could be arguing semantics; perhaps you'd define Swiss employment/healthcare/social service institutions as part of their "culture". I don't; to me culture is more intangible.


But your citizenry's willingness to pay for those programs without going epileptic at the mere suggestion of them is cultural... Or could be defined as such.

You are pointing to the programs/safety net as a reason your crime is lower. The US doesnt have those same things due to the cultural views.
 
2012-08-29 09:53:40 AM

jbabbler: kim jong-un: 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?

Sorry, you lost me with the whole skunk thing


A high percentage of skunks carry rabies. The consequence of petting a wild skunk could be contracting rabies. Its not a punishment.


The consequence of armed robbery is risking the victims resisting. Not a penalty.

The person who contracted rabies didn't receive it as a punishment. Just like dying in an armed robbery isn't a punishment
 
2012-08-29 09:53:51 AM

kim jong-un: Someone approaches you...


That's quite a novella there. Are there any other particulars you'd like to throw in for good measure?
Pretend narratives are fun.
 
2012-08-29 09:56:04 AM

BostonEMT: NBC link with more info on the story:
Armed robbery is Armed robbery

per the article, The perps WERE armed. At that point, i don't care if you're armed with a box cutter or a sharp pencil. If you use it to threaten to kill/hurt/maim someone in order to rob them, then you deserve to be shot.

/yes, that includes milk crates.


Basically youre saying that the person, the man who was killed, was worth less than the money in the cash register. No one automatically deserves to die for pulling a gun. Society says so, as we do not award the death penalty for armed assault.

Two other thoughts: its clearly not about the money. Ivan Boesky and Michael Milken stole billions. More recently the financial sector stole trillions by first selling toxic mortgages, then bundling and reselling them as low risk (AAA) assets. How many of those people were shot for their larceny?

When one has a hammer, all the world appears as a nail. Why should the only options in 2012 be either get robbed or shoot to kill a fellow human being?
 
2012-08-29 09:57:39 AM

jbabbler: DingleberryMoose: 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.

Point taken but I would like to point out that I stated " I would be ok with not having one myself." I cannot speak for the little old ladies. The truth is, without guns, people will use knives, mace, wasp spray, bats, tickle-me-Elmos, etc... to commit crimes.


That's the way people are, unfortunately. We've been killing each other since before we had anything more complicated than the leg bone of a large animal for a weapon.
 
2012-08-29 09:57:59 AM

SirDigbyChickenCaesar: Kit Fister: 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

That is correct. The OP stated that "that the police have no obligation to protect anyone" which is categorically incorrect. Let's say I am on-duty and happen to walk into the local Stop-n-Rob to this scenario. By his logic I can turn around and leave because I don't have an obligation to act when in fact I do.


Unless you would be found culpable in the results of the robbery, be it the death of the clerk or not, would determine whether you have a legal obligation to do so. The Supreme Court has already determined that you do not, so any attempt to prosecute you for that outcome would be tough to stick. You have no legal obligation to protect a citizen anymore, but your personal choice to retain that obligation is commendable. Thank you for that.
 
2012-08-29 09:58:41 AM

Kit Fister: 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.


And now you show up green ;)
 
2012-08-29 10:00:00 AM

bonobo73: BostonEMT: NBC link with more info on the story:
Armed robbery is Armed robbery

per the article, The perps WERE armed. At that point, i don't care if you're armed with a box cutter or a sharp pencil. If you use it to threaten to kill/hurt/maim someone in order to rob them, then you deserve to be shot.

/yes, that includes milk crates.

Basically youre saying that the person, the man who was killed, was worth less than the money in the cash register. No one automatically deserves to die for pulling a gun. Society says so, as we do not award the death penalty for armed assault.

Two other thoughts: its clearly not about the money. Ivan Boesky and Michael Milken stole billions. More recently the financial sector stole trillions by first selling toxic mortgages, then bundling and reselling them as low risk (AAA) assets. How many of those people were shot for their larceny?

When one has a hammer, all the world appears as a nail. Why should the only options in 2012 be either get robbed or shoot to kill a fellow human being?


Because alternatives to getting robbed or shoot to kill are generally off the table when one is faced with an armed perpetrator who is doing the threatening. Try to escape? Call the cops? Do you honestly think that the perp is rational and calm enough to realize that this is not an escalation of the situation?

Perps don't want to be caught. They want the money, and to get away with it. Even if you're cooperative and complacent, you're at the mercy of the mental stability and calm of the person doing the robbing, and the chance that an outside stimulus will set the guy off.
 
2012-08-29 10:00:20 AM

bonobo73: Basically youre saying that the person, the man who was killed, was worth less than the money in the cash register.


Nope, he's saying a consequence of threatening someone with a weapon is the possibility encountering a fatal amount of armed resistance.
 
2012-08-29 10:00:27 AM

themeaningoflifeisnot: 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.

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?


Does this one make you happy?

stlbluez: quatchi: I'm pro gun, pro 2nd amendment and pro CC but I too would like to know what, if anything, these two robbers were armed with before qualifying this guy as any kind of hero.

if they were armed with a butter knife threatening the clerks life... it's good enough.


An index finger stuck in a coat pocket is more than sufficient. Don't wanna get shot, don't go around robbing.
 
2012-08-29 10:00:42 AM

Loaded Six String: Actually, homophobia and xenophobia are currently associated with irrational hatred more than irrational fear. Hoplophobia when used in context to irrational fear of weapons is correct, homophobia and xenophobia being used to describe irrational hatred is a perversion of the meaning of those words. Someone with an irrational hatred of homosexuals isn't homophobic, they're a bigot.


I think it has a whole lot more to do with gun-advocates pervasive (and totally baseless) narrative of victimhood and martyrdom.

I hope that someday, you poor, downtrodden gunowners can overcome the discrimination that you face.
 
2012-08-29 10:01:06 AM

Cinaed: kim jong-un: Someone approaches you...

That's quite a novella there. Are there any other particulars you'd like to throw in for good measure?
Pretend narratives are fun.


So you agree.
 
2012-08-29 10:01:22 AM

Whole Wheat: Kit Fister: 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.

And now you show up green ;)


Woohoo!
 
2012-08-29 10:01:45 AM

Loaded Six String: Blasted phone posting... at any rate it appears AngryDragon made my point for me. Holding the robber(s) at gunpoint would have 3 possible outcomes. The robber complies and waits to be arrested, the robber turns to retaliate, or the robber flees the scene, likely to attempt armed robbery again at a later date. The first option is the preferred outcome, but not guarunteed, the second outcome poses risk to everyone involved, and the third outcome is unacceptable. If a shot can be taken with minimal risk to unintended targets, it is the most logical choice, as it prevents the clerk from being shot out of impatience, negligence, or malice (again, assuming a smart shot can be made) as well as preventing future crimes being perpetrated by that robber. Recidivism amongst violent criminals is very high, and being that there is no effective rehabilitation program in place, the only end to recidivism is life imprisonment or death. It is distasteful to say, but most often true.


I'm all for the death penalty and punishing those that do wrong, but the way you look at it is part of the problem. the real end to recidivism is better rehabilitation programs, not prisons.
 
2012-08-29 10:02:37 AM

AngryDragon: Accolade: How is this not homicide?

Let me help you with that


It is homicide. Apparently, justifiable homicide.
 
2012-08-29 10:04:24 AM

Cinaed: Loaded Six String: And you are assuming that another possible outcome.

There are a great number of potential outcomes. Assuming the worst and acting with deadly force, without the appropriate training and experience.


I appreciate your advocacy for state mandated and funded tactical training for all concealed carry licensees, but as of yet that system is not in place, so we have to rely on crime statistics to determine how many civilian uses of firearms in the prevention or cessation of violent crime are deemed legally justified or not as well as how many shots hit unintended targets. The overwhelming majority of them are shown to be justified while hitting fewer unintended targets than police firearm uses, but I appreciate your willingness to increase that number further.
 
2012-08-29 10:04:34 AM

Kit Fister: Even if you're cooperative and complacent, you're at the mercy of the mental stability and calm of the person doing the robbing, and the chance that an outside stimulus will set the guy off.


So kill a man instead. Because of wonderful anecdotes.
 
2012-08-29 10:04:35 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.


What about prorecting someone else's life?

Scenario: u r armed. U witnedd someone point a gun at another stating "give me your money or you die". No chance of collatetal damage as.you have a clear line of fire. Do you shoot, or do you hope he was bluffing on his statement he is prepared to kill? Why?
 
2012-08-29 10:06:28 AM

Cinaed: Kit Fister: Even if you're cooperative and complacent, you're at the mercy of the mental stability and calm of the person doing the robbing, and the chance that an outside stimulus will set the guy off.

So kill a man instead. Because of wonderful anecdotes.


Or, you know, being witness to actual situations where this has happened, and also personal experience with people that commit these kinds of crimes. But, you know. Whatever.

Dammit, i responded to the troll again.
 
2012-08-29 10:07:05 AM

bonobo73:
Basically youre saying that the person, the man who was killed, was worth less than the money in the cash register. No one automatically deserves to die for pulling a gun. Society says so, as we do not award the death penalty for armed assault.

Two other thoughts: its clearly not about the money. Ivan Boesky and Michael Milken stole billions. More recently the financial sector stole trillions by first selling toxic mortgages, then bundling and reselling them as low risk (AAA) assets. How many of those people were shot for their larceny?

When one has a hammer, all the world appears as a nail. Why should the only options in 2012 be either get robbed or shoot to kill a fellow human being?


The problem with this argument is that you assume that robbery is a civilized transaction. When Madoff stole hundreds of millions of dollars from people there was no immediate threat of death or bodily harm. Armed robbery is violent. It is the very essence of violence. If someone threatens you with a gun then you can legally and morally assume that they intend to use it. If you are comfortable with risking death by complying and hoping that the armed felon is an honest man that will keep his word then, by all means, proceed accordingly. However, if someone pulls a gun on me or my family I will kill them. As a man, husband and father I am morally bound to protect those placed under my care from acts of violence committed against them.
 
2012-08-29 10:07:15 AM

cassanovascotian: 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.


Given your demonstrated complete ignorance of firearms, I recommend that you never touch one in your life.
 
2012-08-29 10:07:28 AM
Well! The blind hog finally found an acorn.
 
2012-08-29 10:07:31 AM

puffy999: Most robbers, even those who present weapons, don't use them, even when denied the goods for which they asked.


Most revolver chambers in a game of Russian Roulette, even those under the hammer, don't contain rounds, even when the trigger is pulled.
 
2012-08-29 10:07:40 AM

kim jong-un: So you agree.


Alas, no. I'm mocking your wonderfully intricate hypothetical situation.

Loaded Six String: I appreciate your advocacy for state mandated and funded tactical training for all concealed carry licensees...


Tactical? No. It's not a question of proper handling and use of the weapon. I'm referring to the training given for officers to react to circumstances and situations, and when/where/how to apply deadly force. Oddly enough, it's at the bottom of the list.
 
2012-08-29 10:07:45 AM

JustGetItRight: themeaningoflifeisnot: 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.

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?

Does this one make you happy?

stlbluez: quatchi: I'm pro gun, pro 2nd amendment and pro CC but I too would like to know what, if anything, these two robbers were armed with before qualifying this guy as any kind of hero.

if they were armed with a butter knife threatening the clerks life... it's good enough.

An index finger stuck in a coat pocket is more than sufficient. Don't wanna get shot, don't go around robbing.


Read all of my posts and then ask yourself if there's any need to waste time asking a question which I've answered clearly already.

I just love people who come in at the end of a long thread and start into comments from right at the beginning of the thread, as if nothing happened in the many hours since then.
 
2012-08-29 10:09:31 AM

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

A smart person would ask:

"If I try to rob a store with a weapon,can I get my ass killed?"

....this is THE question every single criminal is NOW asking in the neighborhood of that Dollar General.


Thanks JRoo for that utterly tired,overused and misleading piece of "statistical" BS
The USA has the largest population of those nations listed and over 60% of the "gun-killings" are suicide.

....also,after having seen the FREAKONOMICS documentary,I seriously question the number of "reported killings" in Japan.


...or said potential criminal may be asking themselves, "do I have to shoot everyone in the store because they may be a potential threat?".
It'll be interesting to see how this incident impacts the rate of armed robberies is in this area, as well as the rate of armed robberies ending in shootings of proprietors and bystanders.
 
2012-08-29 10:09:45 AM

Cinaed: kim jong-un: Someone approaches you...

That's quite a novella there. Are there any other particulars you'd like to throw in for good measure?
Pretend narratives are fun.


Here is the article I referenced earlier: Wendy's freezer massacre (not a pretend narrative) If only the employees had gotten to the root of the robbers issues and discussed their problems......
 
2012-08-29 10:09:59 AM

DORMAMU: Scenario: u r armed. U witnedd someone point a gun at another stating "give me your money or you die". No chance of collatetal damage as.you have a clear line of fire. Do you shoot, or do you hope he was bluffing on his statement he is prepared to kill? Why?


Scenario: u r posting from a cell phone. In answer to your question, you have to take the threat made by the armed individual seriously. You shoot if reasonably safe to do so. There is never "no chance of collateral damage."
 
2012-08-29 10:10:44 AM

Kit Fister: Or, you know, being witness to actual situations...


And you're not effected by those experiences, you're not making potentially lethal assumptions based on traumatic events in your life?

I feel you're approaching this with a kill-or-be-killed mentality, and that just ends up with one, or more, bodies on the floor.
 
2012-08-29 10:12:11 AM

cassanovascotian: Loaded Six String: Actually, homophobia and xenophobia are currently associated with irrational hatred more than irrational fear. Hoplophobia when used in context to irrational fear of weapons is correct, homophobia and xenophobia being used to describe irrational hatred is a perversion of the meaning of those words. Someone with an irrational hatred of homosexuals isn't homophobic, they're a bigot.

I think it has a whole lot more to do with gun-advocates pervasive (and totally baseless) narrative of victimhood and martyrdom.

I hope that someday, you poor, downtrodden gunowners can overcome the discrimination that you face.



Make sure you mention to your future wife that, if attacked, you will not help her nor support the actions of any armed citizens that step in to assist. Maybe you could show her your clever quips on Fark.
 
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