Little Punks tried to Rob the wrong MAN

[Amused]

Originally posted by: Zakath15

Originally posted by: Amused

To me, a right is a right is a right. To violate my rights by taking my money, or my dignity is all the same to me.

This is not to belittle victims of rape, but to highlight the violation of basic human rights that robbery and theft really is.

I think we both agree that both rape and robbery are horrible crimes.



That also being said, my wife and children will know how to safely use firearms.

As does mine. It's a sad, but necessary requirement.

 

[geno]

Originally posted by: roncarter

Originally posted by: Electric Amish
Cool!

Unfortunately the punks lived.

amish

agreed

So you think that the kid deserved to die because he tried mugging someone? Sad.

 

[Mani]

Originally posted by: Amused

Originally posted by: Mani

Originally posted by: Amused

Originally posted by: 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.

If your mom decided not to be raped, she would have let him rip her panties off.

You are making a judgement call based on when he decided to fight back. It's irrelevant.

No, I'm making a judgement based on what he did immediately before resisting. Which is completely relevant. Nothing he did or said afterward leads me to believe that he did it based on principle.

And get off the rape analogy - it's not a very good one, not to mention that it's disturbing.

The rape anology is disturbing because you can't see my point. You mom's right to not be raped is the SAME right you and I have to not be robbed. BOTH are a violation of a basic civil and human rights.

My point is that when the policy is to lay down and allow criminals to have their way, we create an open season on victims. A person being robbed of $120 has just as much right, and responsibility to defend his rights as a woman being raped.

In fact, by the twisted "it was only $120" logic presented here, he has more right to defend himself. Since the woman is only losing her dignity, and he is losing both his dignity AND $120.

It matters not when he chose to fight back, as it was his right and responsibility to do so if he had the means. And it appears he had plenty of means.

No, the rape analogy is disturbing because your using my mother in it. And it is NOT analogous to a robbery...using your logic, someone getting raped and murdered is analogous to someone being pickpocketed $20, just because in both situations the victims' rights were violated. I could list more reasons why but I don't want to argue semantics.

And I hate to repeat myself, but I never claimed that when he decided to fight back had anything to do with it - but rather what motivated him to fight back. If you were being held at gunpoint and decided to take on your aggressors on principle, would you pull out your wallet, see how much you had, and then decide to do it? While I think it's great that this guy was able to win out and I think it makes a great case for concealed weapons permits (for the record, I'm anti-gun control), it's pretty clear based on what he did and said afterwards that he did it for the money.

 

[Triumph]

Heard this guy on Howard Stern. Stern LOVED it, he gave the guy an all-expenses paid weekend getaway for 2, $500 cash, and two other prizes. Good for him!

 

[Amused]

Originally posted by: Mani

Originally posted by: Amused

Originally posted by: Mani

Originally posted by: Amused

Originally posted by: 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.

If your mom decided not to be raped, she would have let him rip her panties off.

You are making a judgement call based on when he decided to fight back. It's irrelevant.

No, I'm making a judgement based on what he did immediately before resisting. Which is completely relevant. Nothing he did or said afterward leads me to believe that he did it based on principle.

And get off the rape analogy - it's not a very good one, not to mention that it's disturbing.

The rape anology is disturbing because you can't see my point. You mom's right to not be raped is the SAME right you and I have to not be robbed. BOTH are a violation of a basic civil and human rights.

My point is that when the policy is to lay down and allow criminals to have their way, we create an open season on victims. A person being robbed of $120 has just as much right, and responsibility to defend his rights as a woman being raped.

In fact, by the twisted "it was only $120" logic presented here, he has more right to defend himself. Since the woman is only losing her dignity, and he is losing both his dignity AND $120.

It matters not when he chose to fight back, as it was his right and responsibility to do so if he had the means. And it appears he had plenty of means.

No, the rape analogy is disturbing because your using my mother in it. And it is NOT analogous to a robbery...using your logic, someone getting raped and murdered is analogous to someone being pickpocketed $20, just because in both situations the victims' rights were violated. I could list more reasons why but I don't want to argue semantics.

So you rather be robbed daily than raped once? And why not use your mother? It hits home that way.

And I hate to repeat myself, but I never claimed that when he decided to fight back had anything to do with it - but rather what motivated him to fight back. If you were being held at gunpoint and decided to take on your aggressors on principle, would you pull out your wallet, see how much you had, and then decide to do it? While I think it's great that this guy was able to win out and I think it makes a great case for concealed weapons permits (for the record, I'm anti-gun control), it's pretty clear based on what he did and said afterwards that he did it for the money.

I could very well pull out my wallet as a diversion. But that's neither here nor there, the same as what he did before he decided to fight back.

 

[Babbles]

I love hearing when conceal and carry works.

There was a story a month or so back here in North Texas where 4 or so punks tried to break into a guy's condo. He had a wife and a kid (or two) and he was not willing to negotiate. He answered the door, got shot, closed the door, ran into his bedroom retrieved his firearm, returned fire and killed like 3 of them.
More power to him.

Just like this guy. He was unemployed and that may have been his last $120 he had to his name not to mention being robbed of his dignity.

And, even though I didn't listen to it, sounds like Howard Stern was being a class act with the guy.

 

[Mani]

Originally posted by: Amused

Originally posted by: Mani

Originally posted by: Amused

Originally posted by: Mani

Originally posted by: Amused

Originally posted by: 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.

If your mom decided not to be raped, she would have let him rip her panties off.

You are making a judgement call based on when he decided to fight back. It's irrelevant.

No, I'm making a judgement based on what he did immediately before resisting. Which is completely relevant. Nothing he did or said afterward leads me to believe that he did it based on principle.

And get off the rape analogy - it's not a very good one, not to mention that it's disturbing.

The rape anology is disturbing because you can't see my point. You mom's right to not be raped is the SAME right you and I have to not be robbed. BOTH are a violation of a basic civil and human rights.

My point is that when the policy is to lay down and allow criminals to have their way, we create an open season on victims. A person being robbed of $120 has just as much right, and responsibility to defend his rights as a woman being raped.

In fact, by the twisted "it was only $120" logic presented here, he has more right to defend himself. Since the woman is only losing her dignity, and he is losing both his dignity AND $120.

It matters not when he chose to fight back, as it was his right and responsibility to do so if he had the means. And it appears he had plenty of means.

No, the rape analogy is disturbing because your using my mother in it. And it is NOT analogous to a robbery...using your logic, someone getting raped and murdered is analogous to someone being pickpocketed $20, just because in both situations the victims' rights were violated. I could list more reasons why but I don't want to argue semantics.

So you rather me robbed daily than raped once? And why not use your mother? It hits home that way.

How did you make that connection from what I said? I'd rather not be robbed at all, but the point remains that comparing a mugging to a forced rape and assault is not a very good analogy.

And I hate to repeat myself, but I never claimed that when he decided to fight back had anything to do with it - but rather what motivated him to fight back. If you were being held at gunpoint and decided to take on your aggressors on principle, would you pull out your wallet, see how much you had, and then decide to do it? While I think it's great that this guy was able to win out and I think it makes a great case for concealed weapons permits (for the record, I'm anti-gun control), it's pretty clear based on what he did and said afterwards that he did it for the money.

I could very well pull out my wallet as a diversion. But that's neither here nor there, the same as what he did before he decided to fight back.[/quote]

I have serious trouble believing he would do all that just as a diversion.

Anyways, judging from the fact that our quoted text is getting huge, we've probably argued enough - we'll have to agree to disagree on this one.

 

[MustangSVT]

wonder if we'll read bunch of stories where ppl got inspired by this and instead they get robbed and beat up/shot.

but good for jarvis

 

[dejacky]

i have a great idea for all of you legalized consealed weapon holders. Stock up on the best CONCEALED guns and go into ghetto towns to try to get people to rob you...then SHOOT THEM & $TAB THEM

-dejacky

 

[Jeff7]

Originally posted by: Electric Amish
Cool!

Unfortunately the punks lived.

amish

Hopefully they will be living in jail for a good long time now. More scum humiliated and scraped from society. Jarvis is sure lucky that those guys weren't really mad, otherwise he'd almost literally have had his head blown off.

 

[DanTMWTMP]

serves 'em right.....makes my day bright

 

[Amused]

Originally posted by: Mani

Originally posted by: Amused

Originally posted by: Mani

Originally posted by: Amused

Originally posted by: Mani

Originally posted by: Amused

Originally posted by: 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.

If your mom decided not to be raped, she would have let him rip her panties off.

You are making a judgement call based on when he decided to fight back. It's irrelevant.

No, I'm making a judgement based on what he did immediately before resisting. Which is completely relevant. Nothing he did or said afterward leads me to believe that he did it based on principle.

And get off the rape analogy - it's not a very good one, not to mention that it's disturbing.

The rape anology is disturbing because you can't see my point. You mom's right to not be raped is the SAME right you and I have to not be robbed. BOTH are a violation of a basic civil and human rights.

My point is that when the policy is to lay down and allow criminals to have their way, we create an open season on victims. A person being robbed of $120 has just as much right, and responsibility to defend his rights as a woman being raped.

In fact, by the twisted "it was only $120" logic presented here, he has more right to defend himself. Since the woman is only losing her dignity, and he is losing both his dignity AND $120.

It matters not when he chose to fight back, as it was his right and responsibility to do so if he had the means. And it appears he had plenty of means.

No, the rape analogy is disturbing because your using my mother in it. And it is NOT analogous to a robbery...using your logic, someone getting raped and murdered is analogous to someone being pickpocketed $20, just because in both situations the victims' rights were violated. I could list more reasons why but I don't want to argue semantics.

So you rather me robbed daily than raped once? And why not use your mother? It hits home that way.

How did you make that connection from what I said? I'd rather not be robbed at all, but the point remains that comparing a mugging to a forced rape and assault is not a very good analogy.

And I hate to repeat myself, but I never claimed that when he decided to fight back had anything to do with it - but rather what motivated him to fight back. If you were being held at gunpoint and decided to take on your aggressors on principle, would you pull out your wallet, see how much you had, and then decide to do it? While I think it's great that this guy was able to win out and I think it makes a great case for concealed weapons permits (for the record, I'm anti-gun control), it's pretty clear based on what he did and said afterwards that he did it for the money.

I could very well pull out my wallet as a diversion. But that's neither here nor there, the same as what he did before he decided to fight back.

I have serious trouble believing he would do all that just as a diversion.

Anyways, judging from the fact that our quoted text is getting huge, we've probably argued enough - we'll have to agree to disagree on this one.[/quote]


OK

 

[Pastfinder]

Originally posted by: Viper GTS
He made one mistake, he should have simply shot the little punk.

Viper GTS

Amen. He gave him only a flesh wound...

 

[olds]

That reminded me of something that happened to a co worker about 15 years ago. I had just got out of the Army and was working a second job at night for Domino's Pizza. One of the other drivers was still an active duty Sergeant. He was also a black belt in tae kwon do, a boxer and about 5' 10" of solid muscle. A guy hit him in the head from behind with a pipe and tried to rob him. He kicked the guys butt and held him for the police. He came back to work that same night and finished his shift. Of all the drivers he could have picked to rob, he singled out the absolute worst one.