Skyfrog Posted August 20, 2009 Share Posted August 20, 2009 The guy deserves a medal and a cold beer. He just got rid of 2 cockroaches that sooner or later would have killed some innocent person on one of their robberies. The guy chased someone down a street shooting at them. Not only was the person fleeing and no threat at that point but the "hero" could have killed other innocent people. Would he still deserve that medal if he had shot and killed a small child during his idiotic vigilante shooting spree? He doesn't deserve a medal, he deserves to be sitting in prison because he's a murderer. That's slightly worse than robbery. Your post is sickening. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
I am Reid Posted August 20, 2009 Share Posted August 20, 2009 You can't drop anyone until the criminal actually uses his weapon in a deadly manner (shoots). If you shoot a armed criminal, depending the situation of course, you (the cop) can be charged with a crime. no, not true Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mokthraka Posted August 20, 2009 Share Posted August 20, 2009 what is with this prevailing batman mentality?people commit crimes because they HAVE TO, not because they just enjoy doing it. studies have shown that increasing punishment does not lower the crime rate substantially, because the person committing the crime does not think they will get caught. if they thought they would get caught they wouldn't do it. there is a reason that theft is not punished by death in the courts. criminals aren't some coherent extremist group. they're individual people, living their individual lives, and due to individual circumstances, find themselves driven to these actions. when you do something wrong, you don't do it thinking ti's wrong do you? you find a way to rationalise it. in your head, you deserve that money, or you need it more than they do, or your actions are harmless in some way. should there be consequences? yes. should those consequences be decided upon and dished out by some random murderer with a gun? ....i don't think so, personally. it ruins legal hierarchy, creates anarchy and propagates injustice. really? they had to do drugs? yeah im sure. MAYBE THEY HAVE TO ROB THE STORE BECAUSE THEY CANT LIVE WITHOUT DRUGS? they only have to because they are completly retarded and decided to do crack or some other drug You can't drop anyone until the criminal actually uses his weapon in a deadly manner (shoots). If you shoot a armed criminal, depending the situation of course, you (the cop) can be charged with a crime. really? if a crimanl raise a gun at anyone the cop can open fire. happened many times before when a robber or who ever had a gun in there hand and was aiming it at the ground decides to even start lifting it. regardless of if he is lifting it towards a cop or innocent person. they will be shot. sure you dont know there going to fire on anyone. but considering they are not listening and are raising a gun into the air. you can guess there going to shoot someone Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Darrian Posted August 20, 2009 Share Posted August 20, 2009 (edited) Again no. You can only draw and use your weapon in self defense with a worthy cause. Example: If someone goes up to you and says "Hey give me your lunch money now" and he was a gun but you do not know he has a gun and it is stored and not visible and you have a gun, if you pull it out and kill him, you will be charged with homicide and NOT self-defense. They never give enough detail in situations like these, so we can't know for sure, but usually at the point where the would-be robber(s) announce(s) that they are going to rob the store they've already drawn their weapon(s) and are pointing it at people. I doubt this guy just shot them for ****s and giggles. Even if he did I still have a hard time sympathizing with his "victims." Edited August 20, 2009 by Darrian Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Comic Book Guy Posted August 20, 2009 Share Posted August 20, 2009 Doesn't the store have CCTV? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Southern Patriot Posted August 20, 2009 Share Posted August 20, 2009 People should just mind their business and stop snitching (IMO) Perfect example of the "me" mentality that has infected our society. I hope someone else has that mentality when YOU are the victim. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Growled Member Posted August 20, 2009 Member Share Posted August 20, 2009 .... I agree with Jester124, if this happened more often, we'd have a lot less of these stories to report about eventually. I agree as well. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
powerade01 Posted August 20, 2009 Share Posted August 20, 2009 no, not true Yes, true. Unless the criminal is a deadly danger (such as weapon drawn pointing at someone and he is asked by police to put his weapon down, and he denies) you cannot use your weapon (as "deadly force"). They never give enough detail in situations like these, so we can't know for sure, but usually at the point where the would-be robber(s) announce(s) that they are going to rob the store they've already drawn their weapon(s) and are pointing it at people. I doubt this guy just shot them for ****s and giggles. Even if he did I still have a hard time sympathizing with his "victims." In this case, if the police see this, they can shoot the guy because he is a deadly danger. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bobeck Posted August 20, 2009 Share Posted August 20, 2009 (edited) The guy deserves a medal and a cold beer. He just got rid of 2 cockroaches that sooner or later would have killed some innocent person on one of their robberies. hell i'd buy him that beer...only sad thing imo about the story is he had to chase the other guy down...had he dropped dead in the store as well it would have been a perfect ending Edited August 20, 2009 by bobeck Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rigby Posted August 20, 2009 Share Posted August 20, 2009 Wow, I never new so many Neowin members supported murderers. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Southern Patriot Posted August 20, 2009 Share Posted August 20, 2009 Yes, true. Unless the criminal is a deadly danger (such as weapon drawn pointing at someone and he is asked by police to put his weapon down, and he denies) you cannot use your weapon (as "deadly force"). But that is not what you said in your previous post. You claimed that the criminal had to use the weapon (shoot) before someone was justified in shooting them. Make up your mind and stop posting nonsense. Wow, I never new so many Neowin members supported murderers. And I never realized that so many supported armed criminals robbing people without anyone being allowed to try to stop them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Black Flash Posted August 20, 2009 Share Posted August 20, 2009 I've got no problem with the first dead guy, but this guy needs to charged with murder for chasing the other guy after he wasn't a threat. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
StevoJD Posted August 20, 2009 Share Posted August 20, 2009 He should be tried for murder. Why couldn't he have shot the robbers in the leg or something, why kill them? He should've let the 2nd guy go, chasing him down the street was not right, the real sick freak here is the shooter. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
powerade01 Posted August 20, 2009 Share Posted August 20, 2009 Perfect example of the "me" mentality that has infected our society. I hope someone else has that mentality when YOU are the victim. No, it hasnt "infected" our society. Its updating the times. You should just recognize this, although you may not agree with it or follow this. BTW, your "mentality" is one of a person that lives in a small town. I say this because I lived in a huge city (millions) with a huge city lifestyle and then went to live to a town with about 3000 people and (semi)changed to a small town mentality (because I had to) and I see mentality like yours everyday and it is difficult for you to see this or understand it unless you live in a huge city and have a city lifestyle Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rigby Posted August 20, 2009 Share Posted August 20, 2009 But that is not what you said in your previous post. You claimed that the criminal had to use the weapon (shoot) before someone was justified in shooting them. Make up your mind and stop posting nonsense.And I never realized that so many supported armed criminals robbing people without anyone being allowed to try to stop them. He was stopped, he left and was fleeing. At that point shooting him was not defense, it was murder. Also as others have pointed out this stupid Batman wannabe could have hit and killed innocent people. His actions were far more dangerous than anything the robbers did. Vigilantism is illegal, he was not a police officer. Of course all the gun toting rednecks will still think him a hero. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
exotoxic Posted August 20, 2009 Share Posted August 20, 2009 thats what i call justice (Y) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rigby Posted August 20, 2009 Share Posted August 20, 2009 Sure fine, let's let citizens be judge jury and executioners. If someone ever shoots a member of your family dead because they were speeding or they saw they had a pocket knife and decided they might rob someone be sure to give them a medal too. Who needs courts or trials, let's just bring back lynch mobs. Yee haw! Git'r done! :pinch: This is why it's illegal to be a vigilante, because of idiots like these. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RAID 0 Posted August 20, 2009 Share Posted August 20, 2009 Give that man a medal. Maybe the next would-be thief will think twice if he/she knows there are folks around who actually have a pair and are willing to defend themselves. :D QFT I'm glad (yes, glad) that two robbers are dead. You know what? **** THEM! They have a history of crime, they were in the act of committing another crime when this hero shot and killed them. They will not have a chance to hurt or steal from anyone else while, at the same time, saving the tax payers money. This story just made my day. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
matt4pack Posted August 20, 2009 Share Posted August 20, 2009 Sure fine, let's let citizens be judge jury and executioners. If someone ever shoots a member of your family dead because they were speeding or they saw they had a pocket knife and decided they might rob someone be sure to give them a medal too. Who needs courts or trials, let's just bring back lynch mobs. Yee haw! Git'r done! :pinch:This is why it's illegal to be a vigilante, because of idiots like these. So you're comparing speeding or having a pocket knife with going into a store with masks and guns announcing to everyone that your robbing the place. Wow. So I guess if you or your family ever go to a store and robbers happen to come in with guns threatening your life which is a traumatizing experience in itself and then happen to kill your family I guess you would not of wished this person had been there to save them? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rigby Posted August 20, 2009 Share Posted August 20, 2009 So you're comparing speeding or having a pocket knife with going into a store with masks and guns announcing to everyone that your robbing the place. No, I'm saying if you allow private citizens to take the law into their own hands and shoot people who they *think* are endangering lives that is just another step down the slippery slope of vigilantism. I don't know where you live but since when is robbery punished by death? Chasing down a fleeing suspect, shooting wildly at him and killing him isn't murder in your world? Endangering the lives of innocent people on the streets is heroic? BS. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ahhell Posted August 20, 2009 Share Posted August 20, 2009 Shooting the guys IN the store could be seen as self defense, however, chasing the guy down the street and shooting him...well that is outright murder. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
matt4pack Posted August 20, 2009 Share Posted August 20, 2009 No, I'm saying if you allow private citizens to take the law into their own hands and shoot people who they *think* are endangering lives that is just another step down the slippery slope of vigilantism. I don't know where you live but since when is robbery punished by death? Chasing down a fleeing suspect, shooting wildly at him and killing him isn't murder in your world? Endangering the lives of innocent people on the streets is heroic? BS. I never said he should have chased down the other guy and maybe he should be charged for that but you were implying that he didn't have a right to shoot even in the store. I know there's somewhat of a grey areas in whether a situation is life threatening but when someone pulls guns out and threatens anybody then that is a long way from being a grey area. He has every right to defend himself and maybe they would not of hurt anybody but the robbers crossed the line and the shooter had no responsibility to wait and find out if they would hurt someone after the guns came out. What if they had shot someone in the robbery then would the shooter of had the right to chase the robber down the street and kill him? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rigby Posted August 20, 2009 Share Posted August 20, 2009 It doesn't matter what he did in the store; he may have been justified in that part but we weren't there and the story isn't completely clear on what happened so we don't know. It's the part about him chasing the suspect down the street and gunning him down that negates him being a hero and makes him a murderer. As was said earlier his actions were far more threatening to the safety of the public than anything the robbers did. What if they had shot someone in the robbery then would the shooter of had the right to chase the robber down the street and kill him? No, he wouldn't. He's not a police officer and if there is no immediate threat to your or someone else's life you can't just chase someone down and kill them. That's completely irrelevant anyway because they didn't shoot anyone in the robbery. Let's stick to what actually happened and not play the "what if" game. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Darrian Posted August 21, 2009 Share Posted August 21, 2009 (edited) I'm shocked how many people here are trying to defend these robbers with statements such as "so it's ok to just shoot someone for breaking the law?" Sorry, no it's not, but the instant a criminal brings a lethal weapon into the mix that pretty much makes them target practice. There are different levels of violation of the law. For a simple theft death obviously should not be an appropriate punishment, but these guys were not just stealing a pack of gum. Armed robbery is not a misdemeanor. I don't like guns, and you cannot predict what idiots using them for a robbery will do with them. Had I been in that store I would have been afraid for my life, and terrified for my daughter's had she been with me, praying the whole while that somebody shot those mother****ers before somebody innocent got killed. So no, what this guy did was not legal or necessarily right, but it's quite possible that if he hadn't done what he had other people who were unarmed may have been killed, instead. I'm also irritated with this whole "Batman" analogy some people are using. Batman doesn't kill, and he hates guns. No, I'm saying if you allow private citizens to take the law into their own hands and shoot people who they *think* are endangering lives that is just another step down the slippery slope of vigilantism. When "people" are armed they are endangering lives. Period. Pretty much the first rule of using any kind of weapon is you do not draw it unless you intend to use it. With guns I'd even go so far as to say even carrying one makes you dangerous, drawn or not, loaded or not (with guns even if you are positive they are not loaded, you always must consider them loaded). Edited August 21, 2009 by Darrian Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sweetsam Posted August 21, 2009 Share Posted August 21, 2009 Batman mentality ? Batman does not kill people. I don't think you need Harvard studies to prove that the level of punishment has effect on crime rate. Very simply put the fear is the deterrent. Lower level punishments do not have the fear element. Let me give you an example. Lets say the govt announces tomorrow that the sun is going to explode, consume earth and destroy in the next few days. Do you know what will happen to law and order situation ? Looting will occur on a massive scale because there is nothing at stake. The fear of loosing your life, reputation etc does not exist. In other words the fear of loosing is what keeps people in check. Well some people don't care and end up making mistakes anyway. I agree people do make bad judgments. But then they should learn from it and not repeat things. That is why punishments must be higher and more severe for repeat offenders. It is important to consider the circumstances under which a person commits a crime. There is a difference between a bankrupt person stealing versus a well off person trying to steal. A well off person trying to steal should be punished severely. So in my opinion repeat offenders and people who commit crimes without any motive should receive severe punishments. In the end what I am trying to say is it is sad that these two people died. But when a person decides to commit a crime they are putting themselves and others lives at risk. So loss of life is a possible outcome. No one forced them to Rob the store so there is no point being upset about the consequences. This is like a person is trying to cross a busy highway and expecting not to be hit. Yes, people should not strike them deliberately but then it is not always possible to stop vehicles traveling at high speeds. So if they get hit they don't have anybody else to blame but themselves. Likewise the outcome of the case at hand is not the best. But I would rather have the robbers dead than some innocent person who happened to be there. It is interesting that some people are commenting that they should have been shot elsewhere that would not be lethal. You should probably look up how police handle such situations. what is with this prevailing batman mentality?people commit crimes because they HAVE TO, not because they just enjoy doing it. studies have shown that increasing punishment does not lower the crime rate substantially, because the person committing the crime does not think they will get caught. if they thought they would get caught they wouldn't do it. there is a reason that theft is not punished by death in the courts. criminals aren't some coherent extremist group. they're individual people, living their individual lives, and due to individual circumstances, find themselves driven to these actions. when you do something wrong, you don't do it thinking ti's wrong do you? you find a way to rationalise it. in your head, you deserve that money, or you need it more than they do, or your actions are harmless in some way. should there be consequences? yes. should those consequences be decided upon and dished out by some random murderer with a gun? ....i don't think so, personally. it ruins legal hierarchy, creates anarchy and propagates injustice. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts