Little Punks tried to Rob the wrong MAN

[Amused]

Originally posted by: Akebona
It said he was unemployed yet he was carrying around 120 bux?? dude, wtf was he thinking? I try to carry less than 100 in my wallet at anytime, no point in carry anymore. If that were me, call me a noobass coward but I woulda handed them the money. Who knows, maybe the kid was so nervous, even if he wouldn't have shot me, he might have accidently pulled the trigger. Screw that, I'm not dying over a few dollars. You may say principal and all that, but I think the people that say that, are the same ones that say "I would fight for this country" but if a draft ever started up, they'd already be in Canada.

Yeah, that's why I'm a veteran infantry soldier.

You ASSume too much.

It IS principle. By making it policy to tell victims to lay down, we are only encouraging crime.

 

[Amused]

Originally posted by: Mani

Originally posted by: Amused

Originally posted by: Nitemare
surprised no one is whining about the 14 y/o getting shot.

If the DEA had shot him would that be wrong?

The really sad part is there are people thinking this man fought them over $120.

What price do you put on your rights? How much money does a person have to take from you before you think it's too much?

If it was purely the principle, what did he take out his wallet, see how much he had, then decide to put up a fight?

It matters when he decided he wouldn't lay down and be vilolated?

Tell me, if you mother or sister was being threatened with rape, and waited until they had their panties off before they decided to fight back, would you think any less of them?

 

[Dufman]

that takes some guts

 

[Amused]

Originally posted by: snooker

Originally posted by: jteef

Originally posted by: vi_edit
Trying to hold someone up with a rifle? Hangun, yes. Shotgun, maybe. Rifle? Pffffft. Little sh!ts are lucky their arrogance and ignorance didn't get them killed.

The guy definitely has some brass clanging between the legs though.

they said it was a sawed off .22 even. I thought that was a little moronic, but I searched google and got 6,000 hits for it. What is the story here? Wouldn't that make the rifle horribly inaccurate and a lot less powerful?

What are the laws regarding shooting somebody from behind in that situation? Clearly a shot to the back of the head or a fatal wound to the back is not cool, but what about a knee or otherwise disabling shot.

jt

I have a buddy who has all the proper permits etc.. to carry a concealed weapon and he let me read a pamplet with the does and do nots for gun safetly and control. One thing I found odd in this pamplet was that fact that it says if you shoot someone, you need to shoot to kill, do not cripple but kill. It went on to explain the reasoning behind that which made sense. The only time you are supposed to fire a firearm in public is if you feel your life is in imminent danger. Thus shooting someone in the back of the knee/leg shows you wasn't in danger the moment you fired the weapon (The assailant was turned going away) and you could end up going to jail too.

Yep, plus no one I know can shoot a three or four inch target with a handgun when under stress. This is why ALL police and military training (sans sniper training) is to shoot "center mass." Never try for the head, arms, or legs. Chances are, no matter how good of a shot you are at the pistol range, you wont hit a small target while under extreme stress.

 

[LostHiWay]

Howard Stern just had the guy on. He sounded like a pretty cool guy and down to earth. If we had more people like this I think crime would really go down.

Props to Howard..he gave the guy 4 different prizes:

An expensive watch
1-year membership to Bally's
$500
4-Day Ski trip that includes everything

 

[LostHiWay]

Originally posted by: Howard

Originally posted by: Lash444
What i find most amusing is where he says that he "disarmed those punks". I am assuming he ripped the vertical feed off the bottom of the gun. Did he realize at any point that there still might be a bullet left in the chamber. I guess that never dawned on him as he started to think that he was the smartest man to ever live on this planet. The problem these days is that you cant just shoot the darn kid in the back after he thinks he got away with stuff. Let him turn around and start to run and then pop a cap in his a$$.

Perhaps they didn't pop one into the chamber, or maybe they actually believed his lie. We'll never know.

He actually took the clip and the pin/spring out. This causes the bullet that was loaded to fall out

 

[Ime]

The only problem I see with this story is: The robbers lived.

Once they get out of jail, they will have learned a lesson: Kill your victim first, THEN take his money.

Wrong lesson, the lesson they should have learned is: <BANG>

 

[dolph]

Originally posted by: Amused

Originally posted by: dolph

Originally posted by: Amused

Originally posted by: dolph

Originally posted by: Electric Amish

Originally posted by: dolph
am i really the only one who thinks this guy wasn't too bright? even if i'm carrying like keanu in the lobby of the matrix, if someone's pointing a rifle at me they're getting my wallet. especially when there are 3 of them. you might think i'm a coward, but i think that anyone else is insane for risking their life for $120.

It's not the money. It's the principle.

amish

damn straight it's the principle. i don't care if it's $120, $1.20, or $1,200,000. my life is priceless. i'd die to protect my family, friends, or possibly innocent people, given the situation. but over money? or any material possesion? too much pride will kill you. so yes, it is the principle. are you willing to die on the chance that you'd survive a run-in with punks like this? is your life worth so little? dying for this principle is not one of my principles.

This is why crime is rampant. We are being raised as victims, blindly handing over our BASIC CIVIL RIGHTS to any thug with a gun.

This is not about money, or pride. It is about our basic human and civil rights. Theft and robbery are crimes because they violate the rights of another. Because we are not a police state, the government cannot, and will not be able to protect us on an individual basis.

Soldiers die on the battle field for our rights. Why are we not allowed to fight for them on an individual basis? If EVERYONE stood up to criminals, how long do you think violent and property crime would last in any great numbers? Not long at all. It's been proven time and time again that criminals fear armed victims more than anything else.

Finally, do NOT mistake this with vigilantism. It is far from it. Vigilantism is taking the law into your own hands AFTER THE FACT. Vigilantism is NOT protecting your self, your rights, and your property from criminals.

let's put it this way - if you were the guy in the story, but you were unarmed, would you still hold your ground?

Probably not. This is why I support concealed carry on demand licensing laws. In EVERY state in which they've been passed, crime has plummeted. In Vermont, a citizen with no criminal history doesn't even need a license to carry a concealed weapon. It's his right as a law abiding citizen. I see no wave of gun crime in Vermont, do you?

The fact is, concealed carry laws keep criminals guessing and deter crime. Armed victims are the worst nightmares of criminals.

and yet by your own admission, if you weren't carrying a weapon you would violate your own principle to save your life. what if you were armed, but there were 3 guys with at least one gun, but you didn't know if the other ones had them too? sort of like this incidenct?

my point, which you helped me illustrate, is that the highest principle we stand for is self preservation. as a soldier, i'm sure your motivation was not to die for our country, but to fight so you can live for it. very few of us want to be martyrs for no reason.

 

[HappyNic]

This is what he should of done instead,, Pretend to hand over the money but drop it on the floor,,, now take out your piece and shot the guy with the rifle (any where will do) , now the other guys in the knee caps ( it's gonna burt so bad). then final shot the guy in the car ( it would be great if you hit the gas tank and the Honda BLowsup). now you call the cop..

 

[Amused]

Originally posted by: dolph

Originally posted by: Amused

Originally posted by: dolph

Originally posted by: Amused

Originally posted by: dolph

Originally posted by: Electric Amish

Originally posted by: dolph
am i really the only one who thinks this guy wasn't too bright? even if i'm carrying like keanu in the lobby of the matrix, if someone's pointing a rifle at me they're getting my wallet. especially when there are 3 of them. you might think i'm a coward, but i think that anyone else is insane for risking their life for $120.

It's not the money. It's the principle.

amish

damn straight it's the principle. i don't care if it's $120, $1.20, or $1,200,000. my life is priceless. i'd die to protect my family, friends, or possibly innocent people, given the situation. but over money? or any material possesion? too much pride will kill you. so yes, it is the principle. are you willing to die on the chance that you'd survive a run-in with punks like this? is your life worth so little? dying for this principle is not one of my principles.

This is why crime is rampant. We are being raised as victims, blindly handing over our BASIC CIVIL RIGHTS to any thug with a gun.

This is not about money, or pride. It is about our basic human and civil rights. Theft and robbery are crimes because they violate the rights of another. Because we are not a police state, the government cannot, and will not be able to protect us on an individual basis.

Soldiers die on the battle field for our rights. Why are we not allowed to fight for them on an individual basis? If EVERYONE stood up to criminals, how long do you think violent and property crime would last in any great numbers? Not long at all. It's been proven time and time again that criminals fear armed victims more than anything else.

Finally, do NOT mistake this with vigilantism. It is far from it. Vigilantism is taking the law into your own hands AFTER THE FACT. Vigilantism is NOT protecting your self, your rights, and your property from criminals.

let's put it this way - if you were the guy in the story, but you were unarmed, would you still hold your ground?

Probably not. This is why I support concealed carry on demand licensing laws. In EVERY state in which they've been passed, crime has plummeted. In Vermont, a citizen with no criminal history doesn't even need a license to carry a concealed weapon. It's his right as a law abiding citizen. I see no wave of gun crime in Vermont, do you?

The fact is, concealed carry laws keep criminals guessing and deter crime. Armed victims are the worst nightmares of criminals.

and yet by your own admission, if you weren't carrying a weapon you would violate your own principle to save your life. what if you were armed, but there were 3 guys with at least one gun, but you didn't know if the other ones had them too? sort of like this incidenct?

my point, which you helped me illustrate, is that the highest principle we stand for is self preservation. as a soldier, i'm sure your motivation was not to die for our country, but to fight so you can live for it. very few of us want to be martyrs for no reason.

It's called "assessing the situation." I'm willing to fight for my rights, but I'm not stupid. You can pull up all the "what ifs" you want. Fact is, I've faced this situation before, and know what to do. Self preservation is important, yes, but not so important we should disarm ourselves and lay down to every thug with a gun. The individual must assess the situation, and fight back if he has a chance. If I'm unarmed, there isn't much chance, is there?

I refuse to give up my liberty for safety. Because as Franklin pointed out, I'll end up with neither

 

[Platypus]

"They're just terrorists to me."


oh no!!! TERRISTS

 

[dxkj]

I think the 3 shots and the car blowing up would call the cops



Anyway, this guy was brave, and some say stupid, but it really depends on the situation. Its much easier to knock a rifle out of the way than it is a handgun, and since he only knew there was one of them for sure *probably* or at least only one armed, it was a decent risk. Plus, I mean come on, he had a gun, thats puts him ahead of the game once he disarmed them.


Now IMO he could probably go to jail based on the fact that he disarmed the gun, and still shot the kid after he knew it was disarmed. Admission of that means he really wasnt in danger *of his life*. Once the kid started swinging he shoulda backed off and pulled his piece.


And always aim for the guy with the gun, not the window of the car something sounds weird in his story

 

[BoberFett]

Woohoo! Hooray for concealed carry!

There's a big push right now for easing CC laws here in MN, and it's about time. I refuse to let peaceniks force me to become a victim.

 

[Lithium381]

Originally posted by: ElFenix

nice! but a bit on the dangerous side

 

[Mani]

Originally posted by: Amused

Originally posted by: Mani

Originally posted by: Amused

Originally posted by: Nitemare
surprised no one is whining about the 14 y/o getting shot.

If the DEA had shot him would that be wrong?

The really sad part is there are people thinking this man fought them over $120.

What price do you put on your rights? How much money does a person have to take from you before you think it's too much?

If it was purely the principle, what did he take out his wallet, see how much he had, then decide to put up a fight?

It matters when he decided he wouldn't lay down and be vilolated?

Tell me, if you mother or sister was being threatened with rape, and waited until they had their panties off before they decided to fight back, would you think any less of them?

Not when, but WHAT motivated him to fight back. He only decided to once he saw that he had 120 bucks in his wallet, which makes it pretty obvious that he only made the decision to fight once he saw how much money he had - and figured it was worth fighting for. If he took them on purely on principle, he wouldn't have even bothered to pull out his wallet in the first place.

 

[Ameesh]

Originally posted by: bleeb
THUG LIFE, OUTLAWWW, WESYDE!! WWTD? (What Would Tupac Do)

 

[Dacalo]

balls of steel

 

[djheater]

It's not acceptable to enforce your standards of behavior via execution. It was wrong of them to threaten his life, it would have been equally wrong of him to kill them. There are other ways to resolve conflict.

 

[ShotgunSteven]

Originally posted by: Lash444
What i find most amusing is where he says that he "disarmed those punks". I am assuming he ripped the vertical feed off the bottom of the gun. Did he realize at any point that there still might be a bullet left in the chamber. I guess that never dawned on him as he started to think that he was the smartest man to ever live on this planet. The problem these days is that you cant just shoot the darn kid in the back after he thinks he got away with stuff. Let him turn around and start to run and then pop a cap in his a$$.

Who knows what all he did? You cannot trust the media to get details right when it comes to guns. Their story about semi-automatic machine guns comes to mind.

 

[ShotgunSteven]

Originally posted by: djheater
It's not acceptable to enforce your standards of behavior via execution. It was wrong of them to threaten his life, it would have been equally wrong of him to kill them. There are other ways to resolve conflict.

Yes, they could discuss their differences over coffee, get in touch with their inner-victims, hug, cry, go on Oprah, get civil-unioned and live happily ever after.

On second thought, the guy being robbed could just shoot them, as anyone being threatened in such a manner ought to have the right to do.

 

[Thegonagle]

Originally posted by: Kaervak
Good for him. Always good to see people stand up to punks like that. Naturally someone will be along shortly to say the robbers are the victims though.

Like who?

Nobody's said it yet. Not even Moonbeam.

 

[incallisto]

Originally posted by: dolph
am i really the only one who thinks this guy wasn't too bright? even if i'm carrying like keanu in the lobby of the matrix, if someone's pointing a rifle at me they're getting my wallet. especially when there are 3 of them. you might think i'm a coward, but i think that anyone else is insane for risking their life for $120.

If you are unemployed, $120 is your only means of survival sometimes. Jarvis is a true American. Don't mess with America!

 

[pulse8]

Originally posted by: ShotgunSteve

Originally posted by: Lash444
What i find most amusing is where he says that he "disarmed those punks". I am assuming he ripped the vertical feed off the bottom of the gun. Did he realize at any point that there still might be a bullet left in the chamber. I guess that never dawned on him as he started to think that he was the smartest man to ever live on this planet. The problem these days is that you cant just shoot the darn kid in the back after he thinks he got away with stuff. Let him turn around and start to run and then pop a cap in his a$$.

Who knows what all he did? You cannot trust the media to get details right when it comes to guns. Their story about semi-automatic machine guns comes to mind.

I just heard the actual guy on Howard Stern and he did in fact rip the vertical feed off the bottom of the gun allowing the bullets to fall out.

 

[djheater]

Originally posted by: ShotgunSteve

Originally posted by: djheater
It's not acceptable to enforce your standards of behavior via execution. It was wrong of them to threaten his life, it would have been equally wrong of him to kill them. There are other ways to resolve conflict.

Yes, they could discuss their differences over coffee, get in touch with their inner-victims, hug, cry, go on Oprah, get civil-unioned and live happily ever after.

On second thought, the guy being robbed could just shoot them, as anyone being threatened in such a manner ought to have the right to do.

You're missing the point, deliberately I imagine. I recognize your right to your opinion and your right to protect your personal property under the law.

The perpetrators acted incorrectly regardless of the rationale the behavior should not be either condoned or allowed, however, executing those who act in an undesirable manner is akin to not treating Aids sufferers. There are other ways the behavior can be modified or corrected. That being said it is not one's job to correct the behavior of other's but simply to act in a correct manner oneself, which I do not believe includes taking human lfe. Your standard of correct action may vary from mine, but I will not debate that with you.

 

[dolph]

Originally posted by: Amused

Originally posted by: dolph

Originally posted by: Amused

Originally posted by: dolph

Originally posted by: Amused

Originally posted by: dolph

Originally posted by: Electric Amish

Originally posted by: dolph
am i really the only one who thinks this guy wasn't too bright? even if i'm carrying like keanu in the lobby of the matrix, if someone's pointing a rifle at me they're getting my wallet. especially when there are 3 of them. you might think i'm a coward, but i think that anyone else is insane for risking their life for $120.

It's not the money. It's the principle.

amish

damn straight it's the principle. i don't care if it's $120, $1.20, or $1,200,000. my life is priceless. i'd die to protect my family, friends, or possibly innocent people, given the situation. but over money? or any material possesion? too much pride will kill you. so yes, it is the principle. are you willing to die on the chance that you'd survive a run-in with punks like this? is your life worth so little? dying for this principle is not one of my principles.

This is why crime is rampant. We are being raised as victims, blindly handing over our BASIC CIVIL RIGHTS to any thug with a gun.

This is not about money, or pride. It is about our basic human and civil rights. Theft and robbery are crimes because they violate the rights of another. Because we are not a police state, the government cannot, and will not be able to protect us on an individual basis.

Soldiers die on the battle field for our rights. Why are we not allowed to fight for them on an individual basis? If EVERYONE stood up to criminals, how long do you think violent and property crime would last in any great numbers? Not long at all. It's been proven time and time again that criminals fear armed victims more than anything else.

Finally, do NOT mistake this with vigilantism. It is far from it. Vigilantism is taking the law into your own hands AFTER THE FACT. Vigilantism is NOT protecting your self, your rights, and your property from criminals.

let's put it this way - if you were the guy in the story, but you were unarmed, would you still hold your ground?

Probably not. This is why I support concealed carry on demand licensing laws. In EVERY state in which they've been passed, crime has plummeted. In Vermont, a citizen with no criminal history doesn't even need a license to carry a concealed weapon. It's his right as a law abiding citizen. I see no wave of gun crime in Vermont, do you?

The fact is, concealed carry laws keep criminals guessing and deter crime. Armed victims are the worst nightmares of criminals.

and yet by your own admission, if you weren't carrying a weapon you would violate your own principle to save your life. what if you were armed, but there were 3 guys with at least one gun, but you didn't know if the other ones had them too? sort of like this incidenct?

my point, which you helped me illustrate, is that the highest principle we stand for is self preservation. as a soldier, i'm sure your motivation was not to die for our country, but to fight so you can live for it. very few of us want to be martyrs for no reason.

It's called "assessing the situation." I'm willing to fight for my rights, but I'm not stupid. You can pull up all the "what ifs" you want. Fact is, I've faced this situation before, and know what to do. Self preservation is important, yes, but not so important we should disarm ourselves and lay down to every thug with a gun. The individual must assess the situation, and fight back if he has a chance. If I'm unarmed, there isn't much chance, is there?

I refuse to give up my liberty for safety. Because as Franklin pointed out, I'll end up with neither

if i hear that fvcking franklin quote one more time on this board, i'm going to become violently ill.

would your solution for street crime for us to all be armed at all times to discourage criminals? would the benefits outweigh the costs? if not, when should we be armed?

i don't know if crime is inevitable in every society, or if there's a way to eliminate it without arming citizens at all times. but i'm confused where we're in disagreement - if i'm unarmed and someone holds me up with a gun, it'd be difficult for me to imagine a situation to be as such that i wouldn't give up my wallet. it seems you feel the same. i don't want criminals any more than you do, but we can't predict when we will be mugged, so how can we take measures to prevent it from happening? again, is it from us all being armed at all times? if not, then what?