| Author | Post |
|---|
eraseallhope
Regular Member
| Joined: | Sun Jan 11th, 2009 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 33 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Sun Jun 28th, 2009 07:22 am |
|
this guy is either crazy or extremly bold.
video and news at the link to fox news
http://www.myfoxla.com/dpp/news/local/Suspects_Sought_in_Store_Robbery_20090624
|
KS_to_CA
Regular Member
|
Posted: Sun Jun 28th, 2009 09:14 am |
|
| I understand why he did what he did. But had a bystander, more so if a minor, got hit in the process, I can only imagine how the media would roast this incident. Last edited on Sun Jun 28th, 2009 09:14 am by KS_to_CA
|
ConditionThree
Activist Member
|
Posted: Sun Jun 28th, 2009 03:08 pm |
|
KS_to_CA wrote: I understand why he did what he did. But had a bystander, more so if a minor, got hit in the process, I can only imagine how the media would roast this incident.
I couldnt hear the video- my soundcard is out. So its not exactly clear how bold or careless this self-defense shooting was.
Regardless, its surprising that even a clean shoot is being treated without an anti slant- making the convenience store clerk the villan instead of the armed robber. I dont however think we should question our motives in self defense even at the prospect of someone innocent being injured. Im not saying we should disregard that possibility, but it shouldnt influence our desire for self-preservation in the instant we must defend ourselves.
|
Statkowski
Regular Member
|
Posted: Sun Jun 28th, 2009 04:18 pm |
|
| The "highly-trained" police shoot more innocent bystanders than lawful gunowners every year. But, they're permitted to get away with collateral damage since they are the only ones.
|
sudden valley gunner
Regular Member
|
Posted: Sun Jun 28th, 2009 05:23 pm |
|
| "..it's dangerous to try and rob me" I love that line. The reporter trying to make it sound like he was endangering himself for carrying a gun. lol.
|
bad_ace
Regular Member
|
Posted: Sun Jun 28th, 2009 09:48 pm |
|
What a great response. "it's dangerous to rob me."
That is exactly the message that will go out to thugs in that neighborhood, they're looking for easy money, not money that could kill them or land them in the hospital. Too easy for them to look for another mark.
|
Sons of Liberty
Regular Member
|
Posted: Sun Jun 28th, 2009 10:49 pm |
|
I loved the last quote:
"I'd rather be judged by 12 than carried by 6."
|
bad_ace
Regular Member
|
Posted: Mon Jun 29th, 2009 06:27 am |
|
| A friend I had in the Army was adamant that one should always have 6 good friends at all times, and everyone else could pound sand.
|
Theseus
Founder's Club Member
|
Posted: Mon Jun 29th, 2009 05:54 pm |
|
"Oh no, he could have hit an innocent bystander!"
Um. . . He could have been hit himself. People seemed more concerned about the fact that he could have hit someone than the fact that he was being robbed at gun point!
When an honorable man shoots in defense they question the sanity of the move ignoring the fact that the thugs could have just as easily and possibly more likely shot innocent people as well.
Last edited on Mon Jun 29th, 2009 05:56 pm by Theseus
|
ourmanthejoker
Regular Member
|
Posted: Tue Jun 30th, 2009 12:29 am |
|
Haha. May the gods bless that man and his store. Too bad he missed, truly!
|
KS_to_CA
Regular Member
|
Posted: Tue Jun 30th, 2009 02:13 pm |
|
ConditionThree wrote: KS_to_CA wrote: I understand why he did what he did. But had a bystander, more so if a minor, got hit in the process, I can only imagine how the media would roast this incident.
I couldnt hear the video- my soundcard is out. So its not exactly clear how bold or careless this self-defense shooting was.
Regardless, its surprising that even a clean shoot is being treated without an anti slant- making the convenience store clerk the villan instead of the armed robber. I dont however think we should question our motives in self defense even at the prospect of someone innocent being injured. Im not saying we should disregard that possibility, but it shouldnt influence our desire for self-preservation in the instant we must defend ourselves.
I am with you completely. BUT I have this mental picture of a media reporter, silently waiting in the shadows, mic on hand, video man at a ready, ready to pounce on these things.
|
KS_to_CA
Regular Member
|
Posted: Tue Jun 30th, 2009 02:17 pm |
|
That could be a new bumper sticker, subtle, but direct, no ifs, ands or buts about it. I guaradamntee you cops would be ticked.
"IT IS DANGEROUS TO ROB ME."
or
"IT IS DANGEROUS TO COME TO MY HOUSE UNINVITED."
Last edited on Tue Jun 30th, 2009 02:18 pm by KS_to_CA
|
N00blet45
Regular Member
|
Posted: Wed Jul 1st, 2009 03:16 am |
|
KS_to_CA wrote: ConditionThree wrote: KS_to_CA wrote: I understand why he did what he did. But had a bystander, more so if a minor, got hit in the process, I can only imagine how the media would roast this incident.
I couldnt hear the video- my soundcard is out. So its not exactly clear how bold or careless this self-defense shooting was.
Regardless, its surprising that even a clean shoot is being treated without an anti slant- making the convenience store clerk the villan instead of the armed robber. I dont however think we should question our motives in self defense even at the prospect of someone innocent being injured. Im not saying we should disregard that possibility, but it shouldnt influence our desire for self-preservation in the instant we must defend ourselves.
I am with you completely. BUT I have this mental picture of a media reporter, silently waiting in the shadows, mic on hand, video man at a ready, ready to pounce on these things.
Aren't they already doing that even when bystanders aren't shot?
If it was a shooting in self-defense then isn't it the thug who is responsible for a bystander being hit, even if the store owner was the one who shot? The store owner did not initiate the violence, he simply defended himself. If a bystander was hit it was only because the store owner was reacting to the criminal action of the robbers.
|
nukechaser
Regular Member
|
Posted: Wed Jul 1st, 2009 04:30 pm |
|
N00blet45 wrote: Aren't they already doing that even when bystanders aren't shot?
If it was a shooting in self-defense then isn't it the thug who is responsible for a bystander being hit, even if the store owner was the one who shot? The store owner did not initiate the violence, he simply defended himself. If a bystander was hit it was only because the store owner was reacting to the criminal action of the robbers.
I keep hearing the echo of my instructor:
"Rule number four: Be aware of your target and what is beyond it."
I've never heard of a law that would relieve a trigger-puller, any trigger-puller, from liability from "sending one downrange". I believe if you pulled the trigger and someone is unintentionally hit that you are responsible. Otherwise, folks could return fire, lots of it, without any repercussions. Can anyone cite such legislation to the contrary?
|
Old Timer
Regular Member
| Joined: | Wed Apr 1st, 2009 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 34 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Wed Jul 1st, 2009 04:47 pm |
|
Felony murder rule. If you are committing a crime and somebody gets killed, you are responsible regardless of whether or not it was you who pulled the trigger.
However, this does not protect the actual shooter from civil liability.
|
SomeGuyInCali
Regular Member
|
Posted: Wed Jul 1st, 2009 04:55 pm |
|
I don't believe he is crazy and I don't think he was intentionally bold. I think he did what he felt was necessary to protect the livelihood of his and his family in the moment when it mattered most. The police are not everywhere to "protect and serve". They can't be. So it is his basic and inalienable right to have a gun on his person. No government can grant this right. Our government does not give us these rights, it is merely supposed to protect our rights. Instead the government is corrupted and taking away our rights. All the while the majority stand idly by like sheep.
"He thinks about it every day" I know I do as well. Mental training. Being prepared to protect and defend your life.
|
nukechaser
Regular Member
|
Posted: Wed Jul 1st, 2009 05:13 pm |
|
Old Timer wrote: Felony murder rule. If you are committing a crime and somebody gets killed, you are responsible regardless of whether or not it was you who pulled the trigger.
However, this does not protect the actual shooter from civil liability.
+1
Thanks!
|
poothrowingape
Regular Member
|
Posted: Wed Jul 1st, 2009 08:10 pm |
|
KS_to_CA wrote: That could be a new bumper sticker, subtle, but direct, no ifs, ands or buts about it. I guaradamntee you cops would be ticked.
"IT IS DANGEROUS TO ROB ME."
or
"IT IS DANGEROUS TO COME TO MY HOUSE UNINVITED."
I have a strict no bumper sticker policy. However i would break it for that. Maybe it says the line and has a picture of a 1911(or some other powerful looking gun) next to it.
Wow can you believe that reporter?
"didnt you think about just cooperating with them?"
UH NO! theres no telling what theyll do even if you give them your money. they might thank you with a warm kiss from their own pistol.
Last edited on Wed Jul 1st, 2009 08:13 pm by poothrowingape
|
stuckinchico
Regular Member
|
Posted: Sun Jul 5th, 2009 09:48 am |
|
Old Timer wrote: Felony murder rule. If you are committing a crime and somebody gets killed, you are responsible regardless of whether or not it was you who pulled the trigger.
However, this does not protect the actual shooter from civil liability.
If im not mistaken I asked this question in law class. The "but for" standard would come in to play ..... Ultimately civil claims should be denied except if they are sueing the principle... under felony murder rule the one commiting the felony. this was my understanding from my professor
|
Current time is 03:27 am | |
|
