Sun Jul 15, 2012, 10:19 AM
GreenStormCloud (10,180 posts)
Customer shoots two armed robbers at Internet cafe.Last edited Sun Jul 15, 2012, 10:21 AM USA/ET - Edit history (1)
http://www.gainesville.com/article/20120714/ARTICLES/120719763
The article is too long to post sections of it - too much stuff would be left out, so I will summarize. The internet cafe had about 30 customers in it. At about 9:45PM two men wearing ski masks, (Both age 19.) one armed with a .45 handgun and the other with a baseball bat entered the cafe. They demanded that all the customers get down on the floor and take their wallets out. The one with the baseball bat smashed a computer. The guy with the gun turned to deal with the cashier, presenting his back to the customers, depending upon the robber with the bat to control the customers. One customer drew his own gun and opened fire, shooting multiple rounds, hitting one robber superficially in the arm, the other robber twice in the butt - once each cheek. They were arrested when they went to a friend's house to get medical treatment. (The friend called the police.) The shooter will not be charged, police said. Hours after his release from the hospital, Henderson, who talked about the pain he feels in his buttock and hip, said the plan was to "barge in, get the money and leave." He said "he never expected anyone to be armed."
IIRC, FL has about 3% of the adult population that has CCW. If one assumes about 30 adults in the place then there is about a 65% probability that someone will be armed. "The gun was broken and rusty and wasn't loaded. Nobody was going to get hurt," he said, standing with crutches. So what? He did a very good job of convincing some of the customers (probably all) that he was armed and dangerous to their lives.
The CCWer did not hit any innocent people.
|
177 replies, 9227 views
| Author | Time | Post | |
| GreenStormCloud | Jul 2012 | OP | |
| permatex | Jul 2012 | #1 | |
| Tuesday Afternoon | Jul 2012 | #2 | |
| permatex | Jul 2012 | #3 | |
| Tuesday Afternoon | Jul 2012 | #4 | |
| HALO141 | Jul 2012 | #112 | |
| oneshooter | Jul 2012 | #5 | |
| rl6214 | Jul 2012 | #7 | |
| oneshooter | Jul 2012 | #8 | |
| rl6214 | Jul 2012 | #56 | |
| oneshooter | Jul 2012 | #57 | |
| rl6214 | Jul 2012 | #58 | |
| AnotherMcIntosh | Jul 2012 | #48 | |
| shadowrider | Jul 2012 | #50 | |
| 4th law of robotics | Jul 2012 | #6 | |
| Lizzie Poppet | Jul 2012 | #9 | |
| Hoyt | Jul 2012 | #10 | |
| Clames | Jul 2012 | #11 | |
| Hoyt | Jul 2012 | #14 | |
| shadowrider | Jul 2012 | #16 | |
| permatex | Jul 2012 | #18 | |
| shadowrider | Jul 2012 | #20 | |
| thelordofhell | Jul 2012 | #52 | |
| Hoyt | Jul 2012 | #62 | |
| Clames | Jul 2012 | #69 | |
| permatex | Jul 2012 | #70 | |
| Clames | Jul 2012 | #71 | |
| Hoyt | Jul 2012 | #73 | |
| permatex | Jul 2012 | #75 | |
| Hoyt | Jul 2012 | #78 | |
| permatex | Jul 2012 | #80 | |
| Hoyt | Jul 2012 | #82 | |
| permatex | Jul 2012 | #84 | |
| friendly_iconoclast | Jul 2012 | #92 | |
| permatex | Jul 2012 | #17 | |
| oneshooter | Jul 2012 | #39 | |
| PavePusher | Jul 2012 | #53 | |
| Hoyt | Jul 2012 | #77 | |
| permatex | Jul 2012 | #83 | |
| Hoyt | Jul 2012 | #90 | |
| permatex | Jul 2012 | #91 | |
| friendly_iconoclast | Jul 2012 | #87 | |
| MainlyLurking | Jul 2012 | #95 | |
| Hoyt | Jul 2012 | #96 | |
| permatex | Jul 2012 | #99 | |
| Hoyt | Jul 2012 | #100 | |
| permatex | Jul 2012 | #102 | |
| Hoyt | Jul 2012 | #103 | |
| permatex | Jul 2012 | #105 | |
| friendly_iconoclast | Jul 2012 | #116 | |
| friendly_iconoclast | Jul 2012 | #119 | |
| bongbong | Jul 2012 | #151 | |
| permatex | Jul 2012 | #161 | |
| bongbong | Jul 2012 | #163 | |
| permatex | Jul 2012 | #167 | |
| bongbong | Jul 2012 | #175 | |
| AtheistCrusader | Jul 2012 | #154 | |
| NewMoonTherian | Jul 2012 | #164 | |
| sarisataka | Jul 2012 | #123 | |
| PavePusher | Jul 2012 | #109 | |
| oneshooter | Jul 2012 | #144 | |
| Hoyt | Jul 2012 | #146 | |
| permatex | Jul 2012 | #147 | |
| Hoyt | Jul 2012 | #149 | |
| permatex | Jul 2012 | #150 | |
| permatex | Jul 2012 | #168 | |
| Hoyt | Jul 2012 | #169 | |
| permatex | Jul 2012 | #170 | |
| Hoyt | Jul 2012 | #171 | |
| permatex | Jul 2012 | #172 | |
| AtheistCrusader | Jul 2012 | #153 | |
| AtheistCrusader | Jul 2012 | #152 | |
| PavePusher | Jul 2012 | #55 | |
| Tuesday Afternoon | Jul 2012 | #126 | |
| Hoyt | Jul 2012 | #127 | |
| Tuesday Afternoon | Jul 2012 | #129 | |
| sarisataka | Jul 2012 | #130 | |
| Tuesday Afternoon | Jul 2012 | #133 | |
| Hoyt | Jul 2012 | #137 | |
| Tuesday Afternoon | Jul 2012 | #139 | |
| permatex | Jul 2012 | #136 | |
| AtheistCrusader | Jul 2012 | #155 | |
| permatex | Jul 2012 | #162 | |
| gejohnston | Jul 2012 | #128 | |
| Hoyt | Jul 2012 | #138 | |
| GreenStormCloud | Jul 2012 | #141 | |
| permatex | Jul 2012 | #143 | |
| permatex | Jul 2012 | #15 | |
| Hoyt | Jul 2012 | #74 | |
| permatex | Jul 2012 | #76 | |
| Meiko | Jul 2012 | #35 | |
| 4th law of robotics | Jul 2012 | #40 | |
| shadowrider | Jul 2012 | #41 | |
| 4th law of robotics | Jul 2012 | #44 | |
| shadowrider | Jul 2012 | #46 | |
| 4th law of robotics | Jul 2012 | #47 | |
| shadowrider | Jul 2012 | #49 | |
| Meiko | Jul 2012 | #79 | |
| ileus | Jul 2012 | #12 | |
| oneshooter | Jul 2012 | #13 | |
| SecularMotion | Jul 2012 | #19 | |
| permatex | Jul 2012 | #21 | |
| shadowrider | Jul 2012 | #23 | |
| permatex | Jul 2012 | #24 | |
| SecularMotion | Jul 2012 | #26 | |
| permatex | Jul 2012 | #27 | |
| shadowrider | Jul 2012 | #28 | |
| permatex | Jul 2012 | #32 | |
| SecularMotion | Jul 2012 | #29 | |
| shadowrider | Jul 2012 | #30 | |
| permatex | Jul 2012 | #31 | |
| shadowrider | Jul 2012 | #34 | |
| permatex | Jul 2012 | #37 | |
| TPaine7 | Jul 2012 | #33 | |
| Lizzie Poppet | Jul 2012 | #67 | |
| SecularMotion | Jul 2012 | #81 | |
| permatex | Jul 2012 | #85 | |
| Lizzie Poppet | Jul 2012 | #88 | |
| sarisataka | Jul 2012 | #93 | |
| SecularMotion | Jul 2012 | #97 | |
| sarisataka | Jul 2012 | #124 | |
| HALO141 | Jul 2012 | #118 | |
| sarisataka | Jul 2012 | #121 | |
| HALO141 | Jul 2012 | #125 | |
| HALO141 | Jul 2012 | #117 | |
| AtheistCrusader | Jul 2012 | #159 | |
| slackmaster | Jul 2012 | #166 | |
| PavePusher | Jul 2012 | #111 | |
| Lizzie Poppet | Jul 2012 | #145 | |
| Clames | Jul 2012 | #120 | |
| AtheistCrusader | Jul 2012 | #158 | |
| GreenStormCloud | Jul 2012 | #165 | |
| AtheistCrusader | Jul 2012 | #157 | |
| HALO141 | Jul 2012 | #115 | |
| shadowrider | Jul 2012 | #22 | |
| TPaine7 | Jul 2012 | #25 | |
| AnotherMcIntosh | Jul 2012 | #36 | |
| shadowrider | Jul 2012 | #42 | |
| oneshooter | Jul 2012 | #38 | |
| shadowrider | Jul 2012 | #43 | |
| 4th law of robotics | Jul 2012 | #45 | |
| PavePusher | Jul 2012 | #54 | |
| Clames | Jul 2012 | #98 | |
| Tuesday Afternoon | Jul 2012 | #131 | |
| AtheistCrusader | Jul 2012 | #156 | |
| Tejas | Jul 2012 | #160 | |
| bongbong | Jul 2012 | #51 | |
| TPaine7 | Jul 2012 | #60 | |
| bongbong | Jul 2012 | #63 | |
| TPaine7 | Jul 2012 | #64 | |
| AnotherMcIntosh | Jul 2012 | #65 | |
| Lizzie Poppet | Jul 2012 | #68 | |
| bongbong | Jul 2012 | #72 | |
| Lizzie Poppet | Jul 2012 | #86 | |
| bongbong | Jul 2012 | #106 | |
| Lizzie Poppet | Jul 2012 | #107 | |
| permatex | Jul 2012 | #108 | |
| permatex | Jul 2012 | #89 | |
| permatex | Jul 2012 | #66 | |
| Tuesday Afternoon | Jul 2012 | #132 | |
| bowens43 | Jul 2012 | #59 | |
| AnotherMcIntosh | Jul 2012 | #61 | |
| sarisataka | Jul 2012 | #94 | |
| marsis | Jul 2012 | #104 | |
| Tuesday Afternoon | Jul 2012 | #135 | |
| jody | Jul 2012 | #101 | |
| GreenStormCloud | Jul 2012 | #110 | |
| PavePusher | Jul 2012 | #113 | |
| gejohnston | Jul 2012 | #140 | |
| PavePusher | Jul 2012 | #114 | |
| Higgs boson | Jul 2012 | #122 | |
| 2on2u | Jul 2012 | #134 | |
| OriginalGeek | Jul 2012 | #142 | |
| permatex | Jul 2012 | #148 | |
| Higgs boson | Jul 2012 | #176 | |
| SecularMotion | Jul 2012 | #173 | |
| Tejas | Jul 2012 | #174 | |
| gejohnston | Jul 2012 | #177 |
Response to GreenStormCloud (Original post)
Sun Jul 15, 2012, 10:31 AM
permatex (1,299 posts)
1. What a couple of morons.
|
Glad no innocent customers were injured.
Now they'll, (hopefully) do some hard time for armed robbery, and an xtra 25 years for being idiots. Can't wait to hear about how the armed customer was a "gun totin cowboy who practiced his quick draw in front of a mirror and then shoved a gun or two down his pants and then walked out of his house with the intention of shooting someone so he could become judge, jury, and executioner". Love those Archives. |
Response to GreenStormCloud (Original post)
Sun Jul 15, 2012, 10:43 AM
Tuesday Afternoon (43,968 posts)
2. two dumbass nineteen y/o did a very stupid, stupid thing. a fucking ball bat!
|
and a rusty old gun. why on earth did they need money so badly? drugs? sad. dumb.
|
Response to Tuesday Afternoon (Reply #2)
Sun Jul 15, 2012, 10:56 AM
permatex (1,299 posts)
3. Probably to go buy a gun that worked
|
so next time they could actually shoot someone. They were definitely on the shallow side of the gene pool.
My favorite statement was the dumbass who said, I didn't think anyone would be armed, well, guess what? Surprise, you win the stupid of the day award. |
Response to permatex (Reply #3)
Sun Jul 15, 2012, 10:59 AM
Tuesday Afternoon (43,968 posts)
4. I wonder if they were high on drugs or trying to get money for drugs. where are their parents?
|
a fucking ball bat. I can't get past that.
|
Response to Tuesday Afternoon (Reply #4)
Mon Jul 16, 2012, 12:28 PM
HALO141 (833 posts)
112. In a land of hoyts,
|
the man with a baseball bat is king.
|
Response to GreenStormCloud (Original post)
Sun Jul 15, 2012, 11:00 AM
oneshooter (5,908 posts)
5. I am waiting to hear from those that will say
|
The gun would not work and the other only had a baseball bat, therefore he should not have shot them. Only used his"natural fighting skills, a hot latte and a chair to defeat them.
|
Response to oneshooter (Reply #5)
Sun Jul 15, 2012, 12:10 PM
rl6214 (7,435 posts)
7. You forgot about the can of pork and beans and the bicycle wheel...
|
|
Response to rl6214 (Reply #7)
Sun Jul 15, 2012, 12:17 PM
oneshooter (5,908 posts)
8. Only you and hoyt would carry such things into a Internet Cafe.
|
The rest of us know better. They don't conceal well at all.
|
Response to oneshooter (Reply #8)
Sun Jul 15, 2012, 04:17 PM
rl6214 (7,435 posts)
56. Why would I carry a can of pork and beans and a bicycle wheel into an Internet Cafe?
Response to rl6214 (Reply #56)
Sun Jul 15, 2012, 04:23 PM
oneshooter (5,908 posts)
57. Because you mentioned it first.
Response to oneshooter (Reply #57)
Sun Jul 15, 2012, 04:27 PM
rl6214 (7,435 posts)
58. No, actually hoyt mentioned it first in a thread weeks ago, I'm just replaying it
|
Last edited Sun Jul 15, 2012, 04:40 PM USA/ET - Edit history (1) I've got a CCL so I choose a little more concealable weapon to defend myself.
|
Response to oneshooter (Reply #5)
Sun Jul 15, 2012, 02:55 PM
AnotherMcIntosh (7,594 posts)
48. Well maybe he should have only shot the baseball-bat-carrying robber once.
|
If he would have shot him only once, the shootee would have been reduced to limping around in a circle and saying such things as "Ow, Ow, Ow."
|
Response to AnotherMcIntosh (Reply #48)
Sun Jul 15, 2012, 02:57 PM
shadowrider (4,583 posts)
50. No good. He was unarmed (A bat doesn't count as a weapon, has to be a gun)
|
Ask around.
|
Response to GreenStormCloud (Original post)
Sun Jul 15, 2012, 11:47 AM
4th law of robotics (6,801 posts)
6. It is ridiculous that in 2012 in a supposedly modern nation these sorts of things still happen
|
seriously, there are still internet cafes?
Why?!?!? |
Response to 4th law of robotics (Reply #6)
Sun Jul 15, 2012, 12:32 PM
Lizzie Poppet (2,376 posts)
9. Well played, sir or madam...well played!
|
|
Response to GreenStormCloud (Original post)
Sun Jul 15, 2012, 01:14 PM
Hoyt (12,157 posts)
10. Where did the rest of our cowboy's bullets land?
Response to Hoyt (Reply #10)
Sun Jul 15, 2012, 01:20 PM
Clames (2,038 posts)
11. Didn't read the article did you.
|
States nobody but the robbers were injured. Pretty self explanatory that the bullets either lodged in the ass of one of the robbers or deposited itself without injury to an innocent.
|
Response to Clames (Reply #11)
Sun Jul 15, 2012, 01:34 PM
Hoyt (12,157 posts)
14. Oh I read article -- guy had inoperable gun, another a bat -- cowboy out to save his ass opened fire
|
Last edited Sun Jul 15, 2012, 02:56 PM USA/ET - Edit history (1) in busy store missing robbers as often as hitting them. Now is that the kind of crap gun carriers think is safe? Or do I have to produce a study that shows that when some cowboy opens fire, misses in a crowded store and shoots through the door toward street, that some innocent people are in danger?
. I know that's not how you guys want the story told -- but them is facts, read for yourself. Another fact is that you guys get all excited when a gun toter shoots someone, that you don't question whether the outcome could have been worse because of the presence of a gun toter. Or, more likely -- and this is an opinion -- you guys don't care. If the cowboy had hit an innocent, you would have just said that one of the lessons their instructor taught (like an instructor knows what the hell they are talking about) was to be sure of your target. Or you'd say two "gang bangers" are off the street. |
Response to Hoyt (Reply #14)
Sun Jul 15, 2012, 01:39 PM
shadowrider (4,583 posts)
16. Who cares if the gun was inoperable? He walked in with it.
|
Do we now have to question the guy and ask if his gun will shoot real bullets in order to satisfy you?
|
Response to shadowrider (Reply #16)
Sun Jul 15, 2012, 01:41 PM
permatex (1,299 posts)
18. In the world of hoyt
|
of course we do.
|
Response to permatex (Reply #18)
Sun Jul 15, 2012, 01:55 PM
shadowrider (4,583 posts)
20. Heh
|
Citizen to bad guy: Excuse me sir, but you've busted in here with the intent of robbing us while holding a gun. May I inquire as to the operational state of that weapon? I'm asking because I have a working gun, but before I shoot, I need to know if you're bluffing. First, though, I'll throw a can of beans at you and speak in a stern voice to get you to quit before I shoot.
|
Response to shadowrider (Reply #20)
Sun Jul 15, 2012, 03:45 PM
thelordofhell (3,810 posts)
52. Heh Heh
Response to shadowrider (Reply #16)
Sun Jul 15, 2012, 04:49 PM
Hoyt (12,157 posts)
62. I know, creed of gun culture: never miss opportunity to shoot living targets AND
|
endanger innocent bystanders.
|
Response to Hoyt (Reply #62)
Sun Jul 15, 2012, 08:22 PM
Clames (2,038 posts)
69. Creed of Hoyt: never miss an opportunity to misrepresent and falsely accuse.
|
|
Response to Clames (Reply #69)
Sun Jul 15, 2012, 08:33 PM
permatex (1,299 posts)
70. It would seem to be what he does best.
|
Hey, at least he's good at something. What I don't understand is why he posts all that when he knows just about every post can be proven a lie, a misrepresentation, or can easily refuted.
|
Response to permatex (Reply #70)
Sun Jul 15, 2012, 08:38 PM
Clames (2,038 posts)
71. Trolling or he thinks he is his post count here.
|
Some people just have serious issues. Maybe it's a way of coping...
|
Response to Hoyt (Reply #73)
Sun Jul 15, 2012, 09:38 PM
permatex (1,299 posts)
75. Thats not hard at all
|
All one has to do is read anything you've posted here.
|
Response to permatex (Reply #75)
Sun Jul 15, 2012, 09:42 PM
Hoyt (12,157 posts)
78. Shiite, even Weaver -- with "I gotta go to the bathroom, bad" -- does better than that.
Response to Hoyt (Reply #78)
Sun Jul 15, 2012, 09:48 PM
permatex (1,299 posts)
80. Sorry Hoyt
|
your not going to bait me into saying something that will get my post hidden. I've proven my point as everyone here can see by your own words. I've actually provided links which is something you have failed to do, so on that note, we are done here. I won't play your little weaver, zimmerman or whoever else game.
|
Response to permatex (Reply #80)
Sun Jul 15, 2012, 09:54 PM
Hoyt (12,157 posts)
82. The only thing you've "proven" would get my post hidden if I mentioned it.
Response to Hoyt (Reply #82)
Sun Jul 15, 2012, 10:13 PM
permatex (1,299 posts)
84. Struck a nerve didn't I?
Response to Hoyt (Reply #73)
Sun Jul 15, 2012, 11:27 PM
friendly_iconoclast (8,860 posts)
92. "Sometimes things are clear without the need to study them"
|
Last edited Sun Jul 15, 2012, 11:27 PM USA/ET - Edit history (1) Who was it that said that, again?
|
Response to Hoyt (Reply #14)
Sun Jul 15, 2012, 01:40 PM
permatex (1,299 posts)
17. You actually produce a link or proof?
|
|
Response to Hoyt (Reply #14)
Sun Jul 15, 2012, 02:35 PM
oneshooter (5,908 posts)
39. hoyt you are soooooo predictable. See post#5.
Response to oneshooter (Reply #39)
Sun Jul 15, 2012, 03:47 PM
PavePusher (15,374 posts)
53. We should have a running pool on reponse times....
|
as it's not a question of if, but merely when....
|
Response to oneshooter (Reply #39)
Sun Jul 15, 2012, 09:40 PM
Hoyt (12,157 posts)
77. One shooter, if you had been there, would you have opened up with that many misses endangering
|
innocent bystanders?
As it turns out, the victims were not in any more danger of being harmed than the innocent bystanders the dumb-assed shooter endangered by firing away like a cowboy in unpopulated area. He missed more times than he hit, at close range. That is not a responsible gun carrier -- too nervous and too stupid. |
Response to Hoyt (Reply #77)
Sun Jul 15, 2012, 09:56 PM
permatex (1,299 posts)
83. And the LEGAL CCW'er knew that how?
|
Were you there? How do you know what he percieved? Obviously the police didn't think he did anything that warranted an arrest at that time, did they?
|
Response to permatex (Reply #83)
Sun Jul 15, 2012, 11:10 PM
Hoyt (12,157 posts)
90. Were you there? If he had hit innocent bystander, what would say?
|
|
Response to Hoyt (Reply #90)
Sun Jul 15, 2012, 11:17 PM
permatex (1,299 posts)
91. But he didn't did he?
|
What would I say, I would say that it's the POS thugs who initiated the whole thing and they should be charged accordingly. Your always condemning the legal gun owner and never placing the blame where it belongs, with the thugs, why is that?
Protecting your fellow robbers? Just a guess. |
Response to Hoyt (Reply #77)
Sun Jul 15, 2012, 10:57 PM
friendly_iconoclast (8,860 posts)
87. So now you do remote sensing, too? I've read about people like you:
![]() |
Response to Hoyt (Reply #77)
Mon Jul 16, 2012, 01:23 AM
MainlyLurking (5 posts)
95. If the bystanders were in just as much danger
|
How is it that the bad guys got hit by three shots and all of those innocent bystanders got hit by none?
The odds and facts simply do not support your position. |
Response to MainlyLurking (Reply #95)
Mon Jul 16, 2012, 01:34 AM
Hoyt (12,157 posts)
96. Good, go blasting away in the same situation. Responsible gunners would question your shooting,
|
as would those who would always question use of guns by those most concerned with savings their own rear.
|
Response to Hoyt (Reply #96)
Mon Jul 16, 2012, 08:49 AM
permatex (1,299 posts)
99. Didn't answer the question didja?
|
Responsible gun owners, of whom I am one, won't question the shooting.
As far as "blasting away in the same situation" you weren't there, were you? You have no idea what prompted the man to draw his LEGALLY carried weapon and shoot and guess what? He didn't hit anyone else but the two punks who started the whole sequence of events. |
Response to permatex (Reply #99)
Mon Jul 16, 2012, 10:06 AM
Hoyt (12,157 posts)
100. You weren't there either. All you know is gun involved, so you are happy whatever gun toter did.
|
No he did not hit anyone else, and the two "punks" did not either.
He could have hit an innocent though since he apparently is like many of you -- can't shoot straight in heat of situation despite all the effing training at playing cowboy. |
Response to Hoyt (Reply #100)
Mon Jul 16, 2012, 10:35 AM
permatex (1,299 posts)
102. I'd say he did a pretty good job at shooting straight.
|
How do you know that he didn't hit what he wanted? Maybe he did exactly what we're trained to do, shoot to stop the threat. Sounds like thats exactly what he did, once the little thugs left, the threat was over, notice he didn't follow them, didn't try to apprehend them? He did exactly what he was trained to do.
He didn't play cowboy, he didn't hit an innocent bystander, he didn't chase them out the door, he waited for police to arrive, bottom line, he did everything right. Playing cowboy, what a crock of crap. BTW, I never once claimed I was there, thats why, unlike you, I'm not second guessing his actions. He was there, he percieved a deadly threat and determined that force was needed to stop the deadly threat, so unless you have info of wrongdoing by the citizen, you have nothing. |
Response to permatex (Reply #102)
Mon Jul 16, 2012, 10:43 AM
Hoyt (12,157 posts)
103. "He perceived a deadly threat." Well, Permatex, maybe he was wrong -- gun lovers are many times.
Response to Hoyt (Reply #103)
Mon Jul 16, 2012, 11:05 AM
permatex (1,299 posts)
105. In this case he wasn't now, was he?
|
just because the dirtbag's gun was inoperable, how was he to know that?
Back to your normal little insults I see, I was wondering how long it would take? Like I said, neither you nor I were there, but, unlike you, I'm not second guessing him. Gee, funny thing also, the shooter will NOT be charged. Guess the cops and DA thought he was justified also. |
Response to permatex (Reply #105)
Mon Jul 16, 2012, 01:16 PM
friendly_iconoclast (8,860 posts)
116. And *that's* the nub of the gist, claimed powers of remote sensing aside...
Response to Hoyt (Reply #103)
Mon Jul 16, 2012, 01:29 PM
friendly_iconoclast (8,860 posts)
119. Hoyt, are you perchance Jim Channon? If so, it would explain a lot...
|
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jim_Channon
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_Earth_Battalion The Warrior Monk Ethos
Service members of the First Earth Battalion would practice meditation, yogic cat stretches and primal screams to attain battle-readiness, and use tui na or shiatsu as battlefield first aid. First Earth Battalion trainees would learn to fast for a week drinking only juice and then eat only nuts and grains for a month. They would be able to: fall in love with everyone, realize the different paths of spirit, perceive the auras of living organisms, attain the power to pass through objects such as walls (phasing), bend metal by using the power of the mind (i.e. psychokinesis), walk on fire, operate based on spirit communications (e.g. mediumship), become a peacemaker, actually change a violent pattern in the world (e.g. the Maharishi Effect), organize a tree plant with kids, calculate faster than a computer, control their heart rate—including making it stop—with no ill effects, intuit information from the past (retrocognition) or future (precognition), have out-of-body experiences, live off nature for twenty days, be 90%+ a vegetarian, and be able to intuit other people's thoughts and feelings via telepathy LTC Channon coined the term "warrior monk" for these new service members of the First Earth Battalion, which is anyone who has the presence, service and dedication of a monk and the absolute skill and precision of a warrior. In “The Warrior Monk’s Vision,” Channon imagined an Army made up of awakened warriors. Channon’s ideal warrior monk would be proficient at every level of force. The warrior monk will learn different self-defense systems of martial arts (such as taiji, aikido, etc.), which are based on the notion of using the force of their attackers against themselves. To alleviate negative stressors and promote healing in self and others, the warrior monk will employ various affirmation, relaxation and visualization techniques, as well as a number of methods like yoga qigong and reiki to help strengthen and improve the mind/body connection with spirit. |
Response to Hoyt (Reply #103)
Tue Jul 17, 2012, 01:33 PM
bongbong (5,436 posts)
151. Careful with permatex
|
In another thread he informed me that, indeed, he is a "tough guy" (his words), and that he's "forgotten more than I know".
You get a double threat with some gun religionists - tough AND smart. Oh, and let's not forget that they're highly sensitive, as they constantly alert on posts that offend their delicate sensibilities. |
Response to bongbong (Reply #151)
Tue Jul 17, 2012, 02:02 PM
permatex (1,299 posts)
161. No threat at all
|
If you take it that way, too bad, not my problem.
As explained before, I haven't alerted on any of your posts, I'd rather leave them there so people can see for themselves just how juvenile you really are. But thanks for playing. |
Response to permatex (Reply #161)
Tue Jul 17, 2012, 03:11 PM
bongbong (5,436 posts)
163. Thou Protesteth Too Much
|
Where did I say you're a threat? Being careful with somebody isn't calling them a threat.
Come on, "tough guy" (your own words), as you gun-religionists like to post over-n-over, PROVE IT! |
Response to bongbong (Reply #163)
Tue Jul 17, 2012, 08:19 PM
permatex (1,299 posts)
167. I rest my case.
Response to permatex (Reply #167)
Wed Jul 18, 2012, 04:47 PM
bongbong (5,436 posts)
175. LOL
|
Yes, it looks like you never read Shakespeare, too.
Wasting too many man-years drooling over death-machine guns makes you miss out on life, "tough guy". BTW, if you're a "tough guy" (as you call yourself), and you need to have a gun to feel safe in public, what does that make me? I don't need a gun to feel safe in public, so I must be a "SUPER DUPER tough guy"! |
Response to Hoyt (Reply #103)
Tue Jul 17, 2012, 01:42 PM
AtheistCrusader (14,268 posts)
154. A police officer would have shot him right then and there as well.
|
So, meh.
(And the police have a FAR worse hit ratio than this old guy did) |
Response to Hoyt (Reply #103)
Tue Jul 17, 2012, 03:21 PM
NewMoonTherian (883 posts)
164. How do you define "many"? n/t
Response to permatex (Reply #99)
Mon Jul 16, 2012, 02:03 PM
sarisataka (2,175 posts)
123. Maybe he should have
|
disarmed the punks, disassembled the gun and bat, threw the pieces into a nearby potted plant and held them so the police could check their papers.
If the punks became aggressive a can of coffee bean could have been employed. |
Response to Hoyt (Reply #77)
Mon Jul 16, 2012, 12:15 PM
PavePusher (15,374 posts)
109. "...would you have opened up with that many misses endangering innocent bystanders?"
|
"He missed more times than he hit, at close range."
Since there is no mention in the article of total number of shots fired, or of any misses, we'll just chalk this up to another case of you making shit up. "As it turns out, the victims were not in any more danger of being harmed..." Your after-fact omnicience and prescience is truely awe-inspiring. You should apply it to something useful. Like... garden fertilizing. |
Response to Hoyt (Reply #77)
Mon Jul 16, 2012, 07:58 PM
oneshooter (5,908 posts)
144. Two each, COM, and stand ready to continue.
|
Ya see I have done that before, I do not miss.
Oneshooter Armed and Livin in Texas And how many cans of beans would you require to subdue them? |
Response to oneshooter (Reply #144)
Mon Jul 16, 2012, 08:23 PM
Hoyt (12,157 posts)
146. You'll never know, but I'm sure I and others could have found a way to handle these clowns
|
without needing a gun.
|
Response to Hoyt (Reply #146)
Mon Jul 16, 2012, 08:29 PM
permatex (1,299 posts)
147. Yeah
|
you would have thrown a can of beans or a bicycle tire at them, or, you would have snatched the gun away from the thug, dismantled it and thrown it in the nearest bushes.
|
Response to permatex (Reply #147)
Mon Jul 16, 2012, 08:50 PM
Hoyt (12,157 posts)
149. Might have just popped a bag and watch em mess the floor.
|
By the way, when are you going to respond to the latest news on 17 year old girl thread where you were cheering/defending the "homeowner" who shot her. Sounds like he was a drug dealer AND she sold him the gun days before.
Whatever you think I would have done, at least I don't have to strap a gun on to go outside. |
Response to Hoyt (Reply #149)
Mon Jul 16, 2012, 08:53 PM
permatex (1,299 posts)
150. Cheering, no
|
defending, yes. What they were doing is irrelevent, those three still went there with the intent to rob them. That she was killed is her and her fault alone.
|
Response to Hoyt (Reply #149)
Wed Jul 18, 2012, 12:39 AM
permatex (1,299 posts)
168. Well Hoyt, your always complaining about people stuffing a gun or two down their pants
|
This one's just for you
![]() |
Response to permatex (Reply #168)
Wed Jul 18, 2012, 12:42 AM
Hoyt (12,157 posts)
169. She could probably keep me off this group for awhile. We just wouldn't do gun talk.
|
Got a link?
|
Response to Hoyt (Reply #169)
Wed Jul 18, 2012, 12:49 AM
permatex (1,299 posts)
170. Google funny gun control signs.
Response to permatex (Reply #170)
Wed Jul 18, 2012, 01:21 AM
Hoyt (12,157 posts)
171. I gotta admit, if you can't walk out of your house without a gun, that is way it should be carried.
Response to Hoyt (Reply #171)
Wed Jul 18, 2012, 09:56 AM
permatex (1,299 posts)
172. At least she wouldn't have to worry about shooting a pecker off.
Response to Hoyt (Reply #146)
Tue Jul 17, 2012, 01:40 PM
AtheistCrusader (14,268 posts)
153. Yeah, let us know if you ever face down some punk with a .45 in his hand.
|
We'll be interested to know what color your underwear ends up.
|
Response to Hoyt (Reply #77)
Tue Jul 17, 2012, 01:40 PM
AtheistCrusader (14,268 posts)
152. His gun held 6 rounds. Hit an arm, and two halves of an ass.
|
So where do you get 'missed more often than he hit'?
Nor are you watching the scene from his vantage point. There's a wall there. He's firing a .380. Would I volunteer to be on the other side of that wall? No. But considering that he's reacting to someone he has every reasonable belief that he's holding a firearm as well, he did remarkably well, with a very short barreled handgun against a moving target, even if he was a 20 year old with excellent reflexes. |
Response to Hoyt (Reply #14)
Mon Jul 16, 2012, 05:19 PM
Tuesday Afternoon (43,968 posts)
126. I read the story. there were no cowboys present.
|
I resent the implication. rude and inflammatory comments again from Hoyt. taking notes.
|
Response to Tuesday Afternoon (Reply #126)
Mon Jul 16, 2012, 05:25 PM
Hoyt (12,157 posts)
127. Our "cowboy" took chances with people's lives to save himself.
|
Would "coward" or "policewannabe" work better for you.
Take whatever notes you like. |
Response to Hoyt (Reply #127)
Mon Jul 16, 2012, 05:51 PM
Tuesday Afternoon (43,968 posts)
129. what do you call bat boy? indian? your attitude toward human life shows little respect for anyone -
|
Last edited Mon Jul 16, 2012, 06:44 PM USA/ET - Edit history (3) you need to grow up, Hoyt. the world is not cowboys and indians anymore.
![]() |
Response to Tuesday Afternoon (Reply #129)
Mon Jul 16, 2012, 06:25 PM
sarisataka (2,175 posts)
130. I miss WWN *sigh* n/t
Response to sarisataka (Reply #130)
Mon Jul 16, 2012, 06:39 PM
Tuesday Afternoon (43,968 posts)
133. always grabbed one in the line at the grocery store, yeah -
|
good times, my friend. good times
|
Response to Tuesday Afternoon (Reply #129)
Mon Jul 16, 2012, 06:43 PM
Hoyt (12,157 posts)
137. Exactly, so folks need to leave guns at home.
Response to Hoyt (Reply #137)
Mon Jul 16, 2012, 06:46 PM
Tuesday Afternoon (43,968 posts)
139. and what about ballbats??? and if these RUDE boys had not showed their ass we would never known
|
Last edited Mon Jul 16, 2012, 07:04 PM USA/ET - Edit history (1) that someone ccw in that internet cafe, now would we? legal took care of illegal. deal with it, Hoyt.
|
Response to Hoyt (Reply #127)
Mon Jul 16, 2012, 06:43 PM
permatex (1,299 posts)
136. I've got the feeling that it wouldn't matter what the situation was.
|
I think even if the dirtbags started shooting the patrons and this guy pulled his legally carried gun and shot these two, you would still condemn the lawful citizen.
I guess it falls under 1 former robber covering for his comrades. |
Response to Hoyt (Reply #127)
Tue Jul 17, 2012, 01:43 PM
AtheistCrusader (14,268 posts)
155. So you're inside his head now? You know he wasn't trying to save all the other people in the room?
Response to Hoyt (Reply #127)
Tue Jul 17, 2012, 02:06 PM
permatex (1,299 posts)
162. So Hoyt
|
how come you haven't posted your conversation with him yet? I mean, after all, you seem to know what he was thinking when he drew and shot. After all, you wouldn't post false statements, would you?
Oh shit, wait. |
Response to Hoyt (Reply #14)
Mon Jul 16, 2012, 05:41 PM
gejohnston (12,599 posts)
128. A Florida cowboy would
|
have used his bullwhip, which is why there were called "crackers". Don't know much about history do you? I know you don't know shit about cowboys.
|
Response to gejohnston (Reply #128)
Mon Jul 16, 2012, 06:45 PM
Hoyt (12,157 posts)
138. I know about gun toters.
Response to Hoyt (Reply #138)
Mon Jul 16, 2012, 07:01 PM
GreenStormCloud (10,180 posts)
141. As a former armed robber you know about illegal gun toters, legal ones you don't know about. N/ZT
Response to Clames (Reply #11)
Sun Jul 15, 2012, 01:38 PM
permatex (1,299 posts)
15. The only reason Hoyt is here is to disrupt, misrepresent, outright lie,
|
he has nothing contructive to add, just destructive. I think he's close to violating the ToS, but thats not my call.
|
Response to Hoyt (Reply #10)
Sun Jul 15, 2012, 02:25 PM
Meiko (1,076 posts)
35. How many rounds did he fire?
|
How many rounds hit the robbers? It is not all that clear. Nobody else was hit though so there couldn't have been too many extra rounds flying around.
|
Response to Hoyt (Reply #10)
Sun Jul 15, 2012, 02:40 PM
4th law of robotics (6,801 posts)
40. A nunnery, a kindergarten, and a refuge for orphaned puppies
|
all told he fired off roughly 100,000 rounds and the streets literally ran red with blood.
|
Response to 4th law of robotics (Reply #40)
Sun Jul 15, 2012, 02:43 PM
shadowrider (4,583 posts)
41. He musta had one of those 100,000 round extended magazines I've been hearing about n/t
Response to shadowrider (Reply #41)
Sun Jul 15, 2012, 02:45 PM
4th law of robotics (6,801 posts)
44. Worse, he had one of those shoulder things that goes up
|
Last edited Sun Jul 15, 2012, 02:46 PM USA/ET - Edit history (1) ?w=500&h=400 |
Response to 4th law of robotics (Reply #44)
Sun Jul 15, 2012, 02:52 PM
shadowrider (4,583 posts)
46. Wow. Does that have heat seeking bullets? n/t
Response to shadowrider (Reply #46)
Sun Jul 15, 2012, 02:53 PM
4th law of robotics (6,801 posts)
47. Of course. How else could it be expected to only hit women and children?
|
/they make smaller targets.
|
Response to 4th law of robotics (Reply #47)
Sun Jul 15, 2012, 02:55 PM
shadowrider (4,583 posts)
49. Not only heat seeking, but can discern gender and age. Impressive. n/t
Response to 4th law of robotics (Reply #40)
Sun Jul 15, 2012, 09:43 PM
Meiko (1,076 posts)
79. Good thing all the rounds
|
were imprinted so they could be traced back to the owner.
|
Response to GreenStormCloud (Original post)
Sun Jul 15, 2012, 01:23 PM
ileus (9,216 posts)
12. Rude toter....hateful to society.
|
They just wanted some folding money...
|
Response to GreenStormCloud (Original post)
Sun Jul 15, 2012, 01:24 PM
oneshooter (5,908 posts)
13. Not bad, but could use some more stress training. n/t
Response to GreenStormCloud (Original post)
Sun Jul 15, 2012, 01:51 PM
SecularMotion (3,153 posts)
19. Why was no attempt made to disarm the robbers?
|
Law enforcement officers have a duty to disarm first and if that fails then shoot. CCWers should be held to the same requirements if they're attempting to stop a criminal in public.
|
Response to SecularMotion (Reply #19)
Sun Jul 15, 2012, 01:55 PM
permatex (1,299 posts)
21. Where in the world do you get the idea that LE duty is to disarm first?
|
A cops first duty is to protect him/herself. Thats got to be the dumbest thing I've heard today. Are you kidding us?
|
Response to permatex (Reply #21)
Sun Jul 15, 2012, 01:59 PM
shadowrider (4,583 posts)
23. Can you believe this? n/t
Response to shadowrider (Reply #23)
Sun Jul 15, 2012, 02:03 PM
permatex (1,299 posts)
24. Sadly
|
yes I can.
|
Response to permatex (Reply #21)
Sun Jul 15, 2012, 02:04 PM
SecularMotion (3,153 posts)
26. So if LE had arrived and found 2 suspects with guns and one with a bat
|
he should just shoot the armed suspects on sight?
|
Response to SecularMotion (Reply #26)
Sun Jul 15, 2012, 02:10 PM
permatex (1,299 posts)
27. Yes.
|
LE has NO DUTY to try to disarm first, their first duty is the protection of themselves. Where do you get that idea?
I have two relates who are cops and they would laugh their ass off at your statement. |
Response to permatex (Reply #27)
Sun Jul 15, 2012, 02:12 PM
shadowrider (4,583 posts)
28. Can you prove, with links, you have two relatives who are cops?
|
Otherwise some will assume they're NRA backing Weaver lovers who have a dash of Zimmerman thrown in.
|
Response to permatex (Reply #27)
Sun Jul 15, 2012, 02:13 PM
SecularMotion (3,153 posts)
29. Then any CCWer who pulls his weapon at a crime scene
|
could be shoot on sight by a responding LE. Do you toters ever consider that?
|
Response to SecularMotion (Reply #29)
Sun Jul 15, 2012, 02:15 PM
shadowrider (4,583 posts)
30. Any legal carrier that pulls his/her weapon with cops on the scene
|
got hit in the head with too many cans of beans and deserves what they get. Of course, the cops will first try and disarm them before shooting, right?
|
Response to SecularMotion (Reply #29)
Sun Jul 15, 2012, 02:19 PM
permatex (1,299 posts)
31. I hope you didn't hurt yourself reaching for that goalpost.
|
Any CCW'er who pulls his gun with police on scene is going to either end up on the ground eating dirt/concrete or with about a dozen bullets in them and rightly so.
|
Response to permatex (Reply #31)
Sun Jul 15, 2012, 02:24 PM
shadowrider (4,583 posts)
34. Don't you know some DU'ers are brave enough to approach legal carriers, disarm them,
|
then disassemble their weapon and throw the parts in a bush? Hell if they can do it, it's small potatos for a cop to do it.
|
Response to shadowrider (Reply #34)
Sun Jul 15, 2012, 02:28 PM
permatex (1,299 posts)
37. Don't forget this gem
Response to SecularMotion (Reply #29)
Sun Jul 15, 2012, 02:21 PM
TPaine7 (4,286 posts)
33. Sure. Cops shoot undercover cops.
|
Last edited Sun Jul 15, 2012, 02:46 PM USA/ET - Edit history (2) It's rare, but it's better than trying to disarm or interrogate a person who is in the act of a violent, armed felony.
Here's a scenario: A criminal has a gun to your loved one's head. There is a cop 10 feet away with a clear head shot, but he believes in a duty to disarm first, so instead of shooting he walks toward the criminal so that he can wrestle the gun out of his hand. As a result, your loved one and the cop are killed and the criminal lives to see another day.
Is that actually preferable, in your mind, to the head shot? |
Response to SecularMotion (Reply #29)
Sun Jul 15, 2012, 08:11 PM
Lizzie Poppet (2,376 posts)
67. Yes, most CCW carriers do indeed think of that.
|
In part, because many (if not most) CCW permit classes make such scenarios and how you should behave part of the curriculum. One thing that was driven home in mine was that when the police arrive to find you holding a suspect at gunpoint, they almost certainly will immediately draw and demand that you drop your weapon (even if dispatch has told them what the situation was). They have no idea if the call to 911 that (presumably) described a DGU was a legit description of what was happening, and their first priority is to make sure the only armed people on the scene are them. My instructor took great pains to point out that it's critical to immediately comply...NOT to try to explain things to the cops while you're still holding your weapon.
It's highly unlikely, however, that the cops will "shoot on sight" in such a situation. that will be against their protocols for these types of scenario. Not that they might not screw up...but what's most likely to happen is as related above: they'll immediately demand you drop your weapon. |
Response to Lizzie Poppet (Reply #67)
Sun Jul 15, 2012, 09:51 PM
SecularMotion (3,153 posts)
81. Do your CCW permit classes teach you to shoot first or to demand a suspect drop their weapon?
|
I think in the case of the OP, if the suspect were warned first he would have readily dropped his weapon knowing it was inoperable.
|
Response to SecularMotion (Reply #81)
Sun Jul 15, 2012, 10:25 PM
permatex (1,299 posts)
85. Why would you announce youself first?
|
Why would you lose the element of surprise? I am under no obligation to warn the thug first. Now, unless the thugs show that they are going to escalate the situation, I myself wouldn't draw, if all they wanted was the money, I would let them have it and I would get the best possible description I could for the police. Sorry, to answer your question, in my CCP class, we were told if we have to shoot to protect ourselves, we better be damned sure and don't announce, just shoot.
|
Response to SecularMotion (Reply #81)
Sun Jul 15, 2012, 10:58 PM
Lizzie Poppet (2,376 posts)
88. That's not really the sort of thing they teach, actually.
|
A class in defensive handgun use might do that sort of thing, but that's not really the focus of CCW permit classes. The latter exist to ensure that permit applicants are aware of what their responsibilities are under the law, what legally constitutes a situation in which deadly force is permissible, what to expect from law enforcement, and so forth. It's not really within their purview to teach tactics.
|
Response to SecularMotion (Reply #81)
Mon Jul 16, 2012, 12:18 AM
sarisataka (2,175 posts)
93. The actions would be up to the carrier
|
Intervening as a third party is discouraged in in CCW classes. It is only in extreme situations that you should do so and is not recommended.
Now say you do intervene, as in this case. The armed citizen must make a split second decision, shoot or demand surrender. The citizen has no way of knowing if the gun is real, fake, broken or anything else, so the assumption must be that it is loaded. Option A- demand surrender Pro- no body gets shot if the criminal gives up Con- criminal may shoot citizen -criminal may shoot clerk -criminal may take clerk hostage, seriously complicating the situation -second criminal may attack citizen before any action is taken Option B- shoot without warning Pro- element of surprise -first hit often will end a fight -opportunity for well aimed shot Con- criminal may not be out of fight and shoot bystander -a miss will give initiative back to the criminal -possibility a miss or penetrating hit will strike bystander -if police arrive on scene citizen may be mistaken for criminal -legal issues of stemming from shooting notice in both cases there are more cons than pros. A third option is do nothing and be a good witness. May be best choice in some situations, however if the situation turns bad there may be many mental issues for 'not doing something sooner' |
Response to sarisataka (Reply #93)
Mon Jul 16, 2012, 06:39 AM
SecularMotion (3,153 posts)
97. Thanks for your response. I agree with all your points.
|
I am not anti-gun and I think well-trained, armed citizens can be a benefit to society. Too many responses here seem to celebrate the use of the gun without considering other options.
|
Response to SecularMotion (Reply #97)
Mon Jul 16, 2012, 02:09 PM
sarisataka (2,175 posts)
124. You seemed to ask an honest question
|
I felt you deserved an honest answer.
I cannot say if I would have shot or not; it is unique to every situation. Some may laugh at the idea of mentally running scenarios, or war gaming if you will, but it is extremely helpful if you find yourself in an unlikely situation such as this. You will be able to focus on you options much sooner if you are not starting from base zero. Note I did not say a carrier should war game these things. A non-carrier should as well. Know where the exits are in case or fire or robbery, is one part of the parking lot better lit than another, etc. It is this situational awareness that will help you avoid being a crime victim in the first place. If you choose to carry I believe it is critical. |
Response to sarisataka (Reply #93)
Mon Jul 16, 2012, 01:28 PM
HALO141 (833 posts)
118. Not that I disagree with your pros/cons breakdown
|
but I don't think this was exactly a "third party" situation. The shooter, along with the other patrons, was a robbery victim and almost certainly would have ended up as one of the hostages should that situation have evolved. (By then, of course, the robbers would have his operational handgun as well.)
|
Response to HALO141 (Reply #118)
Mon Jul 16, 2012, 02:00 PM
sarisataka (2,175 posts)
121. I considered it third party
|
because the armed citizen was not face to face with the gun wielding criminal.
You are correct that he was already involved as opposed to walking in to see a crime in progress. This situation is much clearer to the armed citizen yet the choices are about the same. |
Response to sarisataka (Reply #121)
Mon Jul 16, 2012, 02:10 PM
HALO141 (833 posts)
125. Yeah, I figured.
|
This sort of situation doesn't seem to fit neatly into 1st party/3rd party categories.
|
Response to SecularMotion (Reply #81)
Mon Jul 16, 2012, 01:24 PM
HALO141 (833 posts)
117. Why the hell would I want to turn a shootING into a shootOUT?!?
Response to SecularMotion (Reply #81)
Tue Jul 17, 2012, 01:48 PM
AtheistCrusader (14,268 posts)
159. If the weapon had been operable, the shooter would have been going up against a
|
.45 with a .380.
A pretty shitty proposition in which the bad guy might win, or both parties might lose. |
Response to SecularMotion (Reply #81)
Tue Jul 17, 2012, 03:52 PM
slackmaster (60,567 posts)
166. You should take the class and find out for yourself
|
|
Response to Lizzie Poppet (Reply #67)
Mon Jul 16, 2012, 12:23 PM
PavePusher (15,374 posts)
111. This is also why it's important to stay on the phone with the dispatcher....
|
(or call 911 if at all possible) and let them know what the current situation is. Put the gun down as soon as the police arrive, if it appears safe to do so (i.e. not within reach of the criminal).
Many other possible actions to take as well, which the person asking questions could find out if they'd stop playing disingenuous and actually do some research. |
Response to PavePusher (Reply #111)
Mon Jul 16, 2012, 08:15 PM
Lizzie Poppet (2,376 posts)
145. Agreed. And that, in turn, is a selling point for handguns over shotguns for home defense.
|
Kinda hard to dial the phone and stay in touch with the dispatcher if you're having to hold the weapon on a home invader who has surrendered...and the weapon takes two hands.
|
Response to SecularMotion (Reply #29)
Mon Jul 16, 2012, 01:54 PM
Clames (2,038 posts)
120. Do you even consider not letting your imagination run away with you?
|
Last edited Mon Jul 16, 2012, 06:48 PM USA/ET - Edit history (2) You can't even explain how you reached this illogical path of thought given the thread topic...
|
Response to SecularMotion (Reply #29)
Tue Jul 17, 2012, 01:47 PM
AtheistCrusader (14,268 posts)
158. Yes, that can and has happened.
|
It is extremely rare, but it can happen. Thing is, cops are pretty good at reading body language. The fact that you aren't shooting people that are running away, without weapons in their hands, and that you don't turn your weapon on the cops, is pretty reasonable evidence you don't need to be shot by the police.
|
Response to SecularMotion (Reply #29)
Tue Jul 17, 2012, 03:40 PM
GreenStormCloud (10,180 posts)
165. The police very rarely arrive while the crime is being committed.
|
In the video of this crime, in a separate thread, the entire event takes 19 seconds. When the cops get there, AFTER all the action, the CCWer will have already put his gun up.
Your imagination is in overdrive. |
Response to SecularMotion (Reply #26)
Tue Jul 17, 2012, 01:45 PM
AtheistCrusader (14,268 posts)
157. The one with the gun, you bet.
|
The guy holding it would have a VERY narrow window of opportunity to drop it. Approximately the timespan the officer needs to draw his weapon.
|
Response to permatex (Reply #21)
Mon Jul 16, 2012, 01:13 PM
HALO141 (833 posts)
115. Silly permatex... From TV, of course! n/t
Response to SecularMotion (Reply #19)
Sun Jul 15, 2012, 01:57 PM
shadowrider (4,583 posts)
22. Sure, attempt to disarm a bad guy with a gun in the middle of a heinous crime
|
and get blown away for your effort.
How much did you think before you made that comment? |
Response to SecularMotion (Reply #19)
Sun Jul 15, 2012, 02:04 PM
TPaine7 (4,286 posts)
25. You forgot the sarcasm thingy... Some folks might think you actually believe that if you attempt
|
an armed robbery with a gun or a bat that a police officer is obligated to attempt to disarm you (thus risking his own and other people's lives) before shooting to stop the threat.
That's a joke, but some here might not know it. Note to readers: If you act as these robbers did in front of some plainclothes police, expect them to shoot at you until they empty their guns, spraying bullets much more wildly than this CCW permittee did, and expect them to face no negative consequences whatsoever. And if you (or your next of kin) brings up a "duty to disarm first and if that fails then shoot", expect the officers, the judge and members of the jury to look at you as if you have three heads. |
Response to SecularMotion (Reply #19)
Sun Jul 15, 2012, 02:28 PM
AnotherMcIntosh (7,594 posts)
36. Plus, don't overlook an opportunity to ask: "Why was no attempt made to fire a warning shot?"
Response to AnotherMcIntosh (Reply #36)
Sun Jul 15, 2012, 02:45 PM
shadowrider (4,583 posts)
42. - Snort -
Response to SecularMotion (Reply #19)
Sun Jul 15, 2012, 02:34 PM
oneshooter (5,908 posts)
38. Please show me where that is written.
Response to oneshooter (Reply #38)
Sun Jul 15, 2012, 02:45 PM
shadowrider (4,583 posts)
43. Ask other DU'ers, that'll be proof n/t
Response to SecularMotion (Reply #19)
Sun Jul 15, 2012, 02:51 PM
4th law of robotics (6,801 posts)
45. See that's the problem, they (cops) are law abiding citizens
|
if they were criminals they could just casually take the gun away from the person and use it on them (it is a 100% certainty that if you try to use a firearm in self-defense the criminal will simply take it away and shoot you).
So really we need criminals and their insane ninja like weapon taking skills patrolling the streets. |
Response to SecularMotion (Reply #19)
Sun Jul 15, 2012, 03:48 PM
PavePusher (15,374 posts)
54. Oh dear....
Response to SecularMotion (Reply #19)
Mon Jul 16, 2012, 08:45 AM
Clames (2,038 posts)
98. Wrong again.
|
Cite evidence to that nonsense please....
|
Response to SecularMotion (Reply #19)
Mon Jul 16, 2012, 06:35 PM
Tuesday Afternoon (43,968 posts)
131. disarm a fucking ball bat?? tell me how. I am all ears. that is the rudest goddamn thing I can
|
think of. Wanna piss off someone? walk around with a ballbat. fucking rude as hell. in a goddamn internet cafe ?!!! this ain't no ballfield. holy fuck. that pisses me off. where are these boys' parents??? what kind of raising did they get?
sounds like they got disarmed pretty damn good. lord, I just can not get past the ballbat. ![]() |
Response to SecularMotion (Reply #19)
Tue Jul 17, 2012, 01:44 PM
AtheistCrusader (14,268 posts)
156. Private civilians are never held to the same standard as a police officer.
|
He wasn't trying to apprehend them, nor should he be. THAT would be vigilanteism.
|
Response to SecularMotion (Reply #19)
Tue Jul 17, 2012, 01:55 PM
Tejas (4,759 posts)
160. Batman wasn't there.
Response to GreenStormCloud (Original post)
Sun Jul 15, 2012, 03:45 PM
bongbong (5,436 posts)
51. Lots of replies from the gun-religionists
|
I thought it was hard to type with one hand.
|
Response to bongbong (Reply #51)
Sun Jul 15, 2012, 04:45 PM
TPaine7 (4,286 posts)
60. We all bow to your expertise...
|
I thought it was hard to type with one hand.
(On that point and that point alone.) |
Response to TPaine7 (Reply #60)
Sun Jul 15, 2012, 05:26 PM
bongbong (5,436 posts)
63. Very good
|
"I know you are but what am I?"
Takes me right back to 2nd grade! |
Response to bongbong (Reply #63)
Sun Jul 15, 2012, 05:31 PM
TPaine7 (4,286 posts)
64. Back?!!
|
Last edited Sun Jul 15, 2012, 05:34 PM USA/ET - Edit history (1) Hey, I just thought I'd talk to you at your level.
You know, sans content, sans logic, pure snark. You shouldn't complain about someone reaching out like that. |
Response to bongbong (Reply #63)
Sun Jul 15, 2012, 07:37 PM
AnotherMcIntosh (7,594 posts)
65. What grade are you in now?
Response to bongbong (Reply #63)
Sun Jul 15, 2012, 08:16 PM
Lizzie Poppet (2,376 posts)
68. No one who makes infantile posts like your "type with one hand" twaddle...
|
...and any room to make that sort of remark to someone else.
|
Response to Lizzie Poppet (Reply #68)
Sun Jul 15, 2012, 09:31 PM
bongbong (5,436 posts)
72. Infantile?
|
Oh, don't be so SENSITIVE! It's just a JOKE!
I wish the gun-relgionists at DU were as tough as they think they are! |
Response to bongbong (Reply #72)
Sun Jul 15, 2012, 10:53 PM
Lizzie Poppet (2,376 posts)
86. The concept of irony pretty much passes you by, dunnit?
![]() |
Response to Lizzie Poppet (Reply #86)
Mon Jul 16, 2012, 11:38 AM
bongbong (5,436 posts)
106. Yes!
|
Yes, oh kings-of-unintentional-irony (I'm looking at all of you, DU gun-religionists trying to convince Liberals that guns are "Like! OMG! The most awesomest thing evah!")
|
Response to bongbong (Reply #106)
Mon Jul 16, 2012, 11:41 AM
Lizzie Poppet (2,376 posts)
107. And logic as well, evidently.
|
"strawman argument"
Do yourself a favor and look it up. |
Response to bongbong (Reply #106)
Mon Jul 16, 2012, 11:42 AM
permatex (1,299 posts)
108. So do you have anything constructive to add?
Response to bongbong (Reply #72)
Sun Jul 15, 2012, 10:59 PM
permatex (1,299 posts)
89. Oh, I think I'm a pretty tough guy
|
I've probably forgotten more than you'll ever learn.
|
Response to bongbong (Reply #51)
Sun Jul 15, 2012, 07:52 PM
permatex (1,299 posts)
66. Why don't you show us how
|
you seem to be the expert at it.
|
Response to bongbong (Reply #51)
Mon Jul 16, 2012, 06:37 PM
Tuesday Afternoon (43,968 posts)
132. that's what You get for thinking.
|
go do another bong hit
|
Response to GreenStormCloud (Original post)
Sun Jul 15, 2012, 04:40 PM
bowens43 (14,370 posts)
59. Horror in Texas: Father shoots four kids, wife, kills self
|
http://www.katu.com/news/national/Horror-in-Texas-Father-shoots-four-kids-wife-kills-self-134845408.html
BAY CITY, Texas (AP) — A man who shot four young children and their mother at their southeastern Texas home before killing himself was the woman's husband and children's father, whom she had recently accused of assault, police said Thursday. |
Response to bowens43 (Reply #59)
Sun Jul 15, 2012, 04:47 PM
AnotherMcIntosh (7,594 posts)
61. Off topic. Not related to the actual post.
Response to bowens43 (Reply #59)
Mon Jul 16, 2012, 12:23 AM
sarisataka (2,175 posts)
94. Please don't disrupt the thread
|
It's a news item shared for comment or discussion. If you have nothing to add please refrain from disrupting the thread. Credit where due http://www.democraticunderground.com/117250571#post12 |
Response to bowens43 (Reply #59)
Mon Jul 16, 2012, 10:54 AM
marsis (190 posts)
104. So if the father had used
|
a steak knife you'd be against steak knives.
|
Response to bowens43 (Reply #59)
Mon Jul 16, 2012, 06:43 PM
Tuesday Afternoon (43,968 posts)
135. that deserves it own OP - shall we talk about the underlying cause and stressors in this man's life?
|
shall we talk about how little good it did this woman to report the assault? so sad.
|
Response to GreenStormCloud (Original post)
Mon Jul 16, 2012, 10:21 AM
jody (26,624 posts)
101. Probability is about 60% that at least one person will have a CCW with n = 30
|
“IIRC, FL has about 3% of the adult population that has CCW. If one assumes about 30 adults in the place then there is about a 65% probability that someone will be armed.”
The problem is a variation of the birthday problem and unless my calculations are wrong the probability is about 60% at least one person will have a CCW from: 1 – (.97 exponent 30) Interesting that a criminal taking on 23 people with a population of 3% having CCW has a 50% chance of facing at least one person with a CCW! |
Response to jody (Reply #101)
Mon Jul 16, 2012, 12:18 PM
GreenStormCloud (10,180 posts)
110. I will accept your calculations.
|
I ball-parked it close enough. We arrive at the same conclusion - keep doing that kind of robbery and sometime in the first few robberies your luck is almost certain to run out. His ran out at n=1.
|
Response to jody (Reply #101)
Mon Jul 16, 2012, 12:30 PM
PavePusher (15,374 posts)
113. If criminals had a better background in statistics....
|
I think there'd probably be a lot less crime.
Just another reason to improve the education system. Which blatently begs the question: Does education effectiveness (test scores, graduation rates, etc.) have any correlation to crime rates? Hmmmm..... |
Response to jody (Reply #101)
Mon Jul 16, 2012, 06:50 PM
gejohnston (12,599 posts)
140. My guess is that they were going by stereotype than statistics.
|
Most likely:
CCW=old white guy who does not do computers or cafes. Internet cafe=young geek or hipster or UF student that would not have gun. So much for stereotypes. |
Response to GreenStormCloud (Original post)
Mon Jul 16, 2012, 12:37 PM
PavePusher (15,374 posts)
114. Love the way the butt-shot crim tries to portray himself as a victim.
|
Sad that the author/reporter plays along....
|
Response to GreenStormCloud (Original post)
Mon Jul 16, 2012, 02:00 PM
Higgs boson (42 posts)
122. It's a shame the customer wasn't a better shot.
|
...
|
Response to Higgs boson (Reply #122)
Mon Jul 16, 2012, 06:42 PM
2on2u (1,843 posts)
134. Welcome to DU.... and I don't know why but the name Higgs Bison popped into
|
my head.... but I don't want to buffalo you now.... heh heh....
|
Response to Higgs boson (Reply #122)
Mon Jul 16, 2012, 07:24 PM
OriginalGeek (5,510 posts)
142. No sir
|
that is not a shame. The bottom (no pun intended!) line is that the legal CCW guy prevented an armed robbery without loss of life. That's a good outcome in my book. Criminals go to jail and nobody has to deal with the aftershock of taking a life.
It doesn't always work out that way but in this case, things went as fine as they could given two armed criminals trying to rob innocent people. |
Response to OriginalGeek (Reply #142)
Mon Jul 16, 2012, 08:36 PM
permatex (1,299 posts)
148. I'm going to agree with you
|
It was a positive outcome to a potentially bad situation, and the shooter doesn't have the nightmare of taking a human life on his conscious.
|
Response to OriginalGeek (Reply #142)
Fri Jul 20, 2012, 07:24 PM
Higgs boson (42 posts)
176. Well, the upshot (so to speak) was a net positive, but there's a big chance the criminals will get
|
more opportunities in future to repeat their crimes. And have a few years (or maybe months) of OJT in the crossbar hotel to learn how to rob more efficiently.
|
Response to GreenStormCloud (Original post)
Wed Jul 18, 2012, 10:03 AM
SecularMotion (3,153 posts)
173. The video shows him shooting as they are running away
|
http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=428_1342491285
It's hard to tell if he took one shot before they ran or they just ran at the sight of the gun, but any shots fired after they ran were unnecessary vigilante behavior. |
Response to SecularMotion (Reply #173)
Wed Jul 18, 2012, 10:29 AM
Tejas (4,759 posts)
174. They could've had grenades.
|
At any moment they might have dodged behind a counter or machine and started shooting innocents. They could have surrendered but no, they were retreating to regroup in the parking lot and then remount the attack. Let me guess, if you were a LEO you would have let them flee?
|
Response to GreenStormCloud (Original post)
Sat Jul 21, 2012, 11:00 AM
gejohnston (12,599 posts)
177. I'm sitting in that very internet cafe
|
according to the employee, the CCW guy is a retired US Marshal. Sorry Hoyt, have to find a new meme.
|





?w=500&h=400