CCW holder defending against a bad buy

[shadowrider]

This is one of many videos available on YouTube.

This particular video was taken in 2006, but shows a tense situation where the good guy (CCW holder) stops a robbery AND the possible shooting of a mother/baby / clerk.

The video has stop points where the situation is explained. Stop the video when these pop up to know the background.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3AA_dgRdDhk

Notice, the CCW holder did NOT display his weapon until the bad guy arrived. He didn't threaten the other clerk, nor did he threaten the mother/baby.

[bbinacan]

1. Nice shooting! n/t

[sharesunited]

2. Guns as solution to guns. Zero points awarded.

Not detracting from the good guy's good deed. Just saying, the bad guy's access to a gun emboldened the crime and was the initiating cause.

[The Doctor.]

3. That is a simple fallacy...

There is no 'solution' for 'guns'.

'Guns' are a 'solution' for 'crime'.

Otherwise 'police' would not carry 'guns' to deter 'crime'.

The criminal was emboldened by a gun, his crime was thwarted by one as well. Were it not for the CCW holder, the crime would have been fully committed.

Points awarded.



Now, if your point is that violent criminals should have no access to guns, then I doubt any rational person would disagree.

[Chulanowa]

4. Guns don't deter crime

Using or threatening to use guns deters crime.

In other words? Violence deters crime.

'Course that doesn't sound so nice as a slogan, does it?

[Abq_Sarah]

6. They may lessen the chances of a crime being committed

How many criminals walk onto a shooting range and demand purses and wallets?

[Chulanowa]

12. Again, the assumption is that someone will turn the gun on the would-be robber

Thus deterring crime with violence.

[Abq_Sarah]

22. You can bet your ass they'd turn on the robber

Thus defending themselves against violence.

[tburnsten]

30. Why do you believe that all violence is the same?

Do you think that the violence American G.I.s visited upon the Wehrmacht during 1944-45, freeing what was left of the Jewish, homosexual, "gypsy" whatever that means, and other dissident communities from the concentration camps was exactly the same as the violence S.S. troopers visited on those same communities?

If you say yes, you will be honest, based on your previous statements, but will show what a raving lunatic or hate-filled monster you are.

If you say no then everyone and their mother will see how absolutely full of shit your "argument" is.

Either way you should really try to persuade myself and any lurkers reading this post that you meant something different.

Otherwise you have no more credibility.

[ProgressiveProfessor]

14. Nor do they cause it as SU, Bloomie and other anti gun bigots and phobics claim

[Chulanowa]

16. No, they just make it awfully easy

I mean it takes, like, effort to stab a motherfucker.

[Pavulon]

21. Stabbing a person is not that much of an effort..

no bang, no shell casings, no reloads. More people are stabbed in a year than shot with "assault rifles"

[tburnsten]

31. Or any rifles and shotguns together

For that matter more people are beaten and kicked to death with no weapon than are killed with long arms every year.


But rifles and shotguns that aren't wood and blue colored are SCARY!!!

[Chulanowa]

33. Yeah, but you gotta get all close and stuff, and they might fight back...

And htne you've got their blood all over you...

[Euromutt]

37. So how come the US doesn't have a particularly high level of violent crime?

If you look at the 2004-2005 International Crime Victims Survey (http://rechten.uvt.nl/icvs/pdffiles/ICVS2004_05.pdf), in table 11 on page 74, you'll see that the United States ranked 24th out of the 30 countries surveyed. This is significant, because robbery is the form of non-fatal violent crime in the United States with the highest prevalence of firearm use (26.3% of incidents in 2005, 21.7% in 2006, 24% in 2008). By contrast, in the 2004-2005 ICVS, firearms were used in 5.5% of robbery incidents in the 30 countries surveyed.

So use of firearms in robberies is clearly far more prevalent in the United States than in other wealthy industrialized countries (though firearms were used in 30% of robberies in Mexico) and yet, robbery rates were lower in the U.S. than in most of those countries. It's also worth noting that, though Mexico had a far higher percentage of assaults involving firearms than the U.S. (16% vs. 6%), the assault rate in Mexico was less than half that of the U.S. (Notably, the country with the highest assault rate was Northern Ireland, which had a percentage of assaults committed with firearms equal to that of the United States, UK firearms laws notwithstanding.)

Maybe guns do "make it awfully easy" to commit violent crime, but evidently this is irrelevant, since it is evidently not a determining factor in how frequently violent crime actually occurs.

[SteveM]

40. What problems do you see with using violence in self-defense?

Even Gandhi recommended using violence to stop another from attacking you, your family and your property if you had not reached the non-violent way of "ahimsa." Above all, he was against just letting an attacker have his way. That he termed "cowardice."

Violence is an action with no inherent moral content. When violence is used to deter crime, this can be a good thing. That I wouldn't make a bumper sticker out of it doesn't pang me when I consider violent self-defense as an option.

[The Doctor.]

46. You've failed logic again...

"Threatening to use guns deters crime".

Unless you've changed the meaning of "Threat" to actual "Violence", then you've failed logic.

But yes, 'violence' can also 'deter crime'. That's why police are authorized to use violence.

Now, unless you believe that police should not have the ability to utilize violence, you've also failed the test of reason. In which case, you're on your way into a very deep trench of pseudo-rationalization.

Care to keep diving?

[Name removed]

49. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[sharesunited]

7. Scarcity of guns and ammo generally is the correct answer.

That is the solution for the gun problem.

[ProgressiveProfessor]

11. Not een close, let alone rational, but somehow you feel its time for your one trick pony act again

[cowman]

23. Once again Shares

do you plan on banning lathes and drill presses? How would you stop the smuggling of guns into the country? The former Soviet Union had some of the tightest borders and still couldn't stop smuggling. Do you really think that criminals won't be able to get guns? All you've done is leave the law abiding citizens at the mercy of thugs. Real nice Shares. So, are you going to answer this time?

[The Doctor.]

47. Yes, that would be *fantastic*.

Please tell us how you would see that becoming a reality.

Really.

[Pavulon]

8. So did this hold true with swords before guns.

did the longbow embolden?

[sharesunited]

9. No comparison. Hold it conveniently in your hand and keep shooting until you hit something?

No comparison.

[tburnsten]

10. Which game do you live in?

I've never seen or heard of that kind of behavior, outside of insurgents firing over walls in Iraq and the occasional gangster in some inner city with a chopped up illegally owned firearm blasting away at competitors.

Not the people we are talking about here bub.

[sharesunited]

17. There are so many published stories of mass shootings, I won't even bother to post them here.

You think you get to exclude them as people you aren't talking about?

They are part of the armed general public.

You don't get to throw them out of your definition of the general public as soon as they misbehave with a gun. They are among and part of all of us.

Bub.

[Pavulon]

19. If we pile up bodies. DWI pile dwarfs the spree kills

I think you should find a new topic. This one is done, a political corpse and no longer viable as a a way to fool people into thinking that the government is helping them.

Bottom line not my fucking problem. I drink a beer, and has shit to do with the person splattered on the interstate by a drunk.

[tburnsten]

29. I don't throw out my definition of general public

I just don't include gangsters whose entire livelihood is based on the illicit drug trade and the violence necessary to keep it going as "the general public", because they are not the general public.

Explain how full time drug gang members count as the general public in a way that makes any sense at all and I will reconsider my stance that drug gangs are not ordinary, law-following citizens.

[GreenStormCloud]

34. Criminals are illegally armed.

Even if you could outlaw guns completely, only the law-abiding would surrender them. The criminals would still get guns. The Red Army Faction in Germany, the Red Army in Japan, the New People's Army in the Philippine Islands, or the cartels in Mexico all seem to been able to get guns.

[Pavulon]

15. I use sights. Aim hit. blades dont need reloading

its an individual call. You drink? Do you drive drunk? Thats the difference.

[cowman]

25. C'mon Shares

I'm still waiting for your solution to my post.

[one-eyed fat man]

39. Don't you live in Chicago??

You talk about guns emboldening??? Looks like your superintendent of police wasn't emboldened by his gun, badge or $310,000 salary to respond.

Chicago chief cop cuts and runs

If guns 'embolden' you better buy him




'cause his Glock .40 ain't cuttin' it!

[paulsby]

56. superintendent of police iow cop-o-crat

if that guy has any decency, he would resign

imo, there are a few unpardonable sins in police work, and cowardice is right in that group

[one-eyed fat man]

57. unfortunately

Using 'cop-o-crat' and 'decency' in the same sentence is an oxymoron. He know he won't resign. $310,000 a year and all the graft that comes with standing next to Mayor Daley at anti-gun photo opportunities is a lot to give up. More on the complaint.

Chicago Police Superintendent Accused of Cowardice

[DonP]

58. What? Have Jody Weiss walk away from a do nothing $360,000 a year job? Not bloody likely.

He's a convenient political figurehead for Daley and is being paid to be disposable.

When things get bad on the streets Daley just fires him and replaces him with another fall guy. That way none of the blame ever finds it's way to the 5th floor of city hall.

That's why he's paid so damn much and the street cops still don't have a contract.

[one-eyed fat man]

53. Gunsite?? Thunder Ranch?? Front Sight????

They all pale against "Share's South Chicago School of Spray and Pray Marksmanship"

http://www.s2mafia.org/FIRING_STANCE.ppt

Graduates of the course, in action, in Monrovia.

[DonP]

59. That PPT desperately needs a sound track!

It does make you wonder what even a fairly trained rifleman could do from a roof top with some 30.06 ball in that situation with everyone spraying and praying every which way.

But according to some folks here, that will be the streets of Tempe Arizona as soon as the new law is signed.

[one-eyed fat man]

60. Three types of troops.

During WW2, it was determined that, on average, 2/3 of the riflemen in an US infantry squad did not fire their rifles during a firefight in the ETO.

In every military organization, you will have three kinds of soldiers: killers, fillers and fodder. When I used to teach tank gunnery and mounted combat at the US Army Armor School, we put the distribution at 5% of your force will inflict 40% of the damage your unit does to the enemy. They are the "killers". Of the other 95%, less than 1 in 5 stand a 50/50 chance of surviving their first decisive combat.

This observation, isn't mine, nor is it new. Heraclitus of Ephesus had this to say 2600 years ago.

"Of every 100 men, 10 shouldn't even be there, 80 are nothing but targets, nine are real fighters... We are lucky to have them...

They make the battle. Ah, but the One, One of them is a Warrior... and He will bring the others back."

There is nothing, in 26 centuries of warfare since, to substantially change that distribution. Equipment and weaponry may change, but soldiers do not.

[Chulanowa]

18. Interesting comparison

Know what happened in the middle ages if you had a sword? If you weren't a martial servant of the local lord, you got killed. What happened if you were a heimin in Japan, and had a sword? you got fucking killed. How about a longbow? Well, the general assumption was that a commoner with a longbow was a poacher, and you were killed for it. if you weren't a commoner, then odds are you underwent years - about ten, if I recall - of training to be a competent archer. You had to make your own bown and fletch your own arrows. And you had a hump on your back (ten years of rigorous training to be a yeoman leaves its mark)

In fact, if you'll do your studies, crossbows were proscribed simply because they were easy to use and simple to make compared to earlier weapons.

Swords and bows (and largely every other weapon you can think of) were rigorously and tightly controlled.

[Pavulon]

20. When they banned blades didn't they invent

new and clever ways to kill people?

[tburnsten]

32. dozens of them if I remember correctly

Including firearms.

[Euromutt]

36. Sounds idyllic

However, as I pointed out below, medieval European homicide rates were at best double the highest 20th century American rates. And between 1590 and 1867, Japan saw over 3,000 peasant revolts, occurring with increasing frequency and violence.

You also need to qualify some of your assertions a bit. If you re-read your Chaucer, you'll find examples of non-"martial servants" going about armed, such as the two students in The Reeve's Tale, who (despite being described as poor) equip themselves with swords and bucklers before setting out from Cambridge for the village of Trumpington, while Symkyn, Trumpington's miller, habitually goes armed with a "long panade" (a single-edged sword akin to a falchion or grosses Messer) on his belt, a "poppere" (dagger) in a pouch, and a "Sheffeld twithel" (knife) secreted in his hose, and is also a good shot with a bow.

In actual fact, ownership of weapons among English commoners was not only common, it was required under the Assize of Arms of 1252 for "citizens, burgesses, free tenants, villeins and others from 15 to 60 years of age" to possess arms; even the poorest were expected own a bow. Edward I prohibited all sports except archery, and subsequently in 1363, archery was made mandatory on Sundays, in order to ensure a supply of practiced archers who could be recruited in the event of war. It should be noted that yeomen were commoners; to be precise, the term meant a freeholder, a farmer who owned his own land. Among Germanic peoples on the continent, the equivalent would be a wehrbauer (lit. a farmer who provides for his own defense). But even villein who were expected to provide military service to their lord would consequently have to possess weapons.

And of course, when it came to cities, the local nobility had no power whatsoever.

So, in actual fact, control of private ownership of arms and armor was nowhere near as stringent as you assert.

[Euromutt]

27. According to the best available historical evidence, far more so

The lowest homicide rates in medieval Europe were about double the highest homicide rates of 20th century America, ~20/100,000 against ~10/100,000. The murder rate in London 1300-1350 varied between 36 and 52/100,000, and that was one of least murderous places in England at the time (the murder rate in Oxford was over 100)!

This was before "personal" firearms (the hand cannon or "gonne") were even available in Europe.

[ProgressiveProfessor]

13. Bad guy down is a mandatory 10 points. Please keep up the real world

[proteus_lives]

24. He did more then you ever would.

"Emboldened" :eyes:

[MichaelHarris]

26. it always amazes me

why DU allows a forum where people sent posts to the greatest page because someone was killed or maimed. The forum should get blood-dripping text and smiles with AKs.

[cowman]

28. If it bothers you

that much, why do you come here? And yeah, I celebrate when a bad guy gets taken down and innocents are saved.

[PavePusher]

35. It always amazes me...

that you demonstrate so much personal insecurity when confronted by instances of succesful self-defense by Citizens who own and carry firearms.

[SteveM]

41. So, do you want to ban the Forum AND guns?

I suppose you would prefer a "greatest" if it were, oh, Virginia Tech. I mean, if that "blood-dripping text" proves your prohibitionist point, you would want it posted, right?

[one-eyed fat man]

38. Since you sing this song often enough.

Is it your contention that criminals would be unable to commit crimes without guns? Is it your contention that criminals would be unable to obtain guns from other sources? Is it your contention that if handguns were banned that criminals wouldn't saw off shotguns?

Please explain how any of your proposals would lessen criminal behavior?

The IRA, you remember those guys? Just to let the Crown know they could, they fired some unfuzed mortar rounds onto Heathrow airport in the 80's. Now, YOU tell me, where in ordinary trade do you buy an 82 millimeter mortar? Bader-Meinhof managed to attack Gen. Frederick J. Kroesen, USAREUR commander, as he and his wife were being driven through the outskirts of Heidelberg with an RPG-7.

One of the documented unintended consequences of the handgun ban in the UK is an increased use of military grade weapons smuggled in from former East bloc countries. As the source of civilian arms dried up,(that is, made more rare and expensive to apply YOUR model of control) the UK's career crooks replaced revolvers with submachine guns. The penalty was no different, so 'in for a penny, in for a pound.'

If your intent is "gun control" simply because you hate guns just say so. If you think it will make one iota of difference to a criminal, you are only deluding yourself.

[Abq_Sarah]

5. Everything by the book

Bad guy survived and got a 7 year prison sentence.

The other desk clerk did a great job as well keeping her cool, calling 911 and getting the mom and child behind the counter.

[electricray]

42. I am very torn by this situation

On the one hand, I applaud the armed clerk for his bravery. I think he was as diligent and as responsible about his use of that firearm as anyone could have been, law enforcement or otherwise. The way this played out, he turns out to be a hero.

But I have to wonder what he really saved. There is no audio and no indication as to whether the robber had intended to hurt anyone had the robbery just proceeded and 911 gotten called after he left. If the guy had grabbed the cash and split there may have never been any gunfire to begin with. In that case all that was really preserved here was the business owner's money. I am not opposed to protecting the business owner's investment, and I certainly don't want to see a lawless society where criminals get away with this with impunity. But I watched that video a few times and the thing that really sticks in my head is how close to that little girl's head the clerk's gun was. There is also the note that the criminal got a few rounds off as well. This situation worked out well and the only person physically hurt was the robber, but if this situation is repeated in every robbery that takes place, that little girl just might take one of the many bullets flying around.

I guess my internal conflict is that the money that the criminal would have gotten away with is not worth that little girl's life, so that video offers little comfort. I am a gun rights supporter and I believe that people have the right to arm and defend themselves, but in that situation, I really feel like the addition of another gun to the situation made it more dangerous and volatile. If I had been standing there with my kid, I would have rather the robber taken the business owner's money than to have bullets flying around my kid. Is there insurance against losses from robbery? I can't buy insurance to protect my kid from a stray bullet.

Then there is the problem I have with the whole "good guy" vs. "bad guy". But that is probably best saved for another thread.

I want to emphasize that I am strongly against the idea that gun control is the answer to gun crime. Gun control would have eliminated one of the guns in that video and it wouldn't have been the criminal's gun. That being said, I also believe that if a city or municipality has the (local) public support to control guns in certain areas, it is acceptable, if deemed necessary. I just don't think it is effective therefore, the necessity is moot.

[tburnsten]

43. If the guy is robbing the store with a gun

He isn't there "to take money", he is there to threaten people with the use of deadly force if they don't submit to his illegal demands. There is no telling what he would do, and he was already well past the threshold morally and legally where his victims were in the green as far as defending themselves against him.

Audio is irrelevant, there is no reason not to take his threat of murder at face value. Thatis what robbery is "your money or your life", well the second someone places your life on the bargaining table, you had better believe it is your responsibility to get it OFF the bargaining table.

The other "commodities", for lack of a better term, are completely irrelevant. There is no reason to trust in the good will of a person who has just communicated that they will kill you based on your compliance with their illegal demands and possibly will kill you anyway to avoid having a witness or just for the hell of it.

[X_Digger]

44. The problem that I have with "stuff" vs life..

.. is the inherent assumption that if one just complies with a criminal brandishing and threatening with a gun that he won't actually shoot you anyway. This person has already broken the social contract with the rest of us, why should we then trust him to be truthful?

[one-eyed fat man]

45. Good guy /bad guy

Let's just suppose that you are walking through the parking lot some evening, and a stranger comes up, pulls a gun or knife, and demands your wallet, your watch and car keys. Will you have any doubt as to who is being victimized?

Is it sufficient that he doesn't suddenly remark what a cute ass you have?

Are you sure he won't kill you anyway just to be sure you don't pick him out of a lineup? Maybe he'll just shoot you because you only had three dollars and twenty-seven cents in your pocket and he is pissed at risking an armed robbery beef for chump change?

I do not want to hear this crap about how this poor disenfranchised youth had was forced to rob people. The bastard is surely miserable, but he ain't "Les Miserables". Poverty makes people poor, it does not make them thieves, rapists, armed robbers or murderers. The individual CHOSE to commit a crime. Armed robbery is a particularly confrontational crime. The person committing the crime has to get in the victim's face and make a credible threat of sever harm. For many armed robbers the "rush" comes from the terror they cause, the loot is secondary.

and yes, crime is a choice. It is a choice you make every day. What keeps you from stealing? Killing people? Raping your neighbor's kids? If you can refrain, along with most of civil society, then they can to!

As soon as they choose not to, then, if they get themselves shot during a crime, they had it coming.

[electricray]

48. I disagree that everyone can make the same choices

It doesn't make crime an acceptable choice, but the mentally ill cannot make acceptable choices. These criminals are not "bad guys". They are seriously ill. Many of them are seriously undereducated and poorly integrated into normal society. If they had a serious communicable disease, you would ask questions, do what you could to help. But because their symptoms challenge the authoritarian nature of many who must maintain control at all times, they are seen as "deserving" of the eventualities that their symptoms lead to.

It is not ok to commit crime. At all. There but for the grace of God go I. The thing that keeps me from killing people, stealing, etc is my own confidence in my ability to meet the needs of my family in congruence with a society that I voluntarily participate in. I don't know what it would take to push me over into the mental illness that would make these acts seem acceptable, but I hope I never find out.

I am not saying I feel sorry for the perp here, at all. He did make his own bed. If he was a father trying to steal to feed his family (I realize that is probably not the case in this or very many crimes, but just for arguments sake) then I would have to confront my own demons because I have a family and can relate to a narrative that includes that. But that is where I run into my moral dilemma. The possibility exists that this guy could be reformed and helped to heal his sickness. The focus should not be on people arming up to kill off these ill people. It should be on getting these people closer to my level of confidence in my ability to participate in society peacefully and fairly.

That said, nobody seems to be addressing the point about the possibility of the dead kid in a similar situation. That is the thin red line for this thread. A stray bullet, misfire, ricochet, etc, and a dead kid makes this a thread excoriating the idea of vigilante justice in service of protection of profits. Let him take the cash for now, then empower the police to do their jobs and investigate the robbery.

The other thought I had is that if I were a criminal, and I thought I was up against an armed mark, I would just come in shooting. Dead men shoot no guns.

[shadowrider]

50. You make some good points

But the fallacy is here:

IF someone is mentally ill and commits an armed robbery, at the moment the robbery is taking place, no one KNOWS he's mentally ill. All they see is a gun and they'll defend themselves. The fact of his/her mental state comes out AFTER the crime has been committed.
While I agree some, but not all, mental illnesses can be "cured" using medication, it is ultimately up to the sick person to take the meds. If they don't, they're right back where they started.

The other thought I had is that if I were a criminal, and I thought I was up against an armed mark, I would just come in shooting.

They do this already whether or not they think someone is armed. Plenty of examples of bad guys who walk in and start blasting, stealing after the fact.

This is why I conceal carry. IF a bad guy is intent on committing a crime, whether or not someone is open carrying, I'd rather have the element of surprise on my side.

[one-eyed fat man]

51. I'll concede on mentally ill.

There may be those whose cognitive abilities are so skewed by serious mental illness that the see rape and robbery as useful life skill sets. But just because people engage in "sick" behavior does not make them criminally insane. While you may argue the exception, most criminals do indeed make exactly that choice and the grace of God has nothing to do with it.

Second, you appear to immensely confused on the difference between self-defense and vigilante justice. let me go back to the earlier scenario:

You are walking through the parking lot some evening, and a stranger comes up, pulls a gun or knife, and demands your wallet, your watch and car keys. Will you have any doubt as to who is being victimized? Will you be concerned over his motivation? Will your attention be captivated by the 14 inch long Bowie knife he has against your throat?

Is it sufficient that he doesn't suddenly remark what a cute ass you have?

Are you sure he won't kill you anyway just to be sure you don't pick him out of a lineup? Maybe he'll just shoot you because you only had three dollars and twenty-seven cents in your pocket and he is pissed at risking an armed robbery beef for chump change?

Now, assuming this was not a hopelessly retarded, destitute, desperate man with starving children at home, upset the Salvation Army food bank was closed whereupon you'd gleefully submit to his predations, you determine he is merely criminal and intent on hurting you. If under that threat of serious and imminent bodily harm, you shoot the son-of-a-bitch,that would be self-defense!

On the other hand, if a week later, after you get out of the hospital from the beating he gave you, you spot him at the car wash, wearing your watch, and you cave his skull in with a ball-bat while he is bent over washing the hubcaps on your car, that would be vigilantism.

[Euromutt]

52. Reasonable thoughts, but I cannot agree

I read just enough medical blogs to understand that mental health care in this country (and elsewhere, for all I know) isn't managing to do the job that's required of it, stripped as it has been of both resources and, perhaps more importantly, the power to apply those resources effectively. The trend towards deinstitutionalization of the mentally ill was driven by laudable aims, but it's open to question how much it has benefited both the mentally ill themselves, and society at large, given that by some estimates, 30-40% of homeless are mentally ill, and possibly as much 40-50% of jail and prison inmates. Certainly, there are currently more mentally ill people incarcerated in penal facilities than are committed to mental hospitals. Also, a disproportionate number of homicides are committed by inadequately treated mental patients, and they are also disproportionately likely to be killed by police. Is this really better than being involuntarily committed?

So to some extent, "society is to blame" for failing to provide mechanisms to assist these people before they put themselves in a situation in which somebody gets injured or killed. And I do believe that, by the same token, society as a whole bears a certain amount of culpability for failing to creating factors that contribute to young males becoming violent criminals; we can blame gangs, but in doing so, we overlook why joining a gang is an attractive proposition to the kids they recruit in the first place.

But the failures of society as a whole do not justify requiring the individual citizen like you or me to be a sacrificial lamb to atone for society's sins, especially since society as a whole has absolutely zero intention of performing penance. If the guy who threatens or inflicts lethal force on me is caught, society isn't going to say "we've failed you, allow us to rehabilitate you"; it's going to lock him up for as long as possible, and then relegate him to second-class citizenship once it lets him loose again. The bottom line is that, when I'm the one being threatened with lethal force, it's not my duty to agonize what brought the guy to this point; at that time, in that place, it is my right to defend myself against the threat the guy poses to me.

The other thought I had is that if I were a criminal, and I thought I was up against an armed mark, I would just come in shooting. Dead men shoot no guns.

That's an instant first-degree murder charge. Personally, if I were in that situation, I'd go look for an unarmed target instead.

[one-eyed fat man]

55. Night clerks

The folks working those late shifts at the convenience stores and hotel desks are not exactly making money hand over fist. Lots of single moms, and guys working second jobs to actually support their families. Here, are these the surveillance tape results you prefer where the unarmed clerks get to suffer the mercy of their attackers? If you have the stomach for it, in each case the clerk cooperated, only to be killed in cold blood without passion or remorse!

http://www.clipsyndicate.com/video/playlist/1742/1033268?cpt=8&wpid=811

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=1976797475403944057

http://www.dailymotion.com/video/x2pa7x_store-clerk-gets-shot-dead_creation

http://www.mefeedia.com/news/27873465

http://www.breitbart.tv/?comments=1&p=145083

http://video.msn.com/video.aspx?mkt=en-us&vid=341418cf-99ff-4c4b-b96b-de605ca94c46

http://abclocal.go.com/kfsn/video?id=7179151

Were it MY choice, I'd prefer the criminal dead, every time, no doubt, none whatsoever! You tell me which killer looks like he or she is starving, destitute, or embued with remorse at sinking to such a level of desperation they are forced to steal to feed their children? Tell me again these criminals were without choice. You are more likely to find the winning Powerball ticket at the corner grocery than a robber who fits your poor lost soul image. I can almost understand your reluctance to accept that there are folks beyond redemption. While you desperately cling to "the possibility exists that this guy could be reformed..." he will kill, hurt you, rob you and it will bother him less than stepping on a roach. While you are in a dither over "his humanity" he sees you as prey. It really is as simple as that!

[friendly_iconoclast]

61. I *was* a night clerk in a hotel, and we were most certainly armed

The two security guards had .38 revolvers, and the night auditor carried a Series 80 Colt 1911 with Pacmayr grips as he competed in Practical Pistol. He had another one he would lend to me, and I would put 15-20 rounds a week through it
at the range.

Had I been forced to use that gun on a robber, I would have. I would have felt really bad about it afterwards, but I would
not ask anyone to depend on the dubious mercy of an armed robber.


BTW, several other hotels in the area, including one three blocks away were robbed- but we never were.

[DonP]

54. I'll see your "possible wounded little girl" and raise you five dead women at Lane Bryant

The idea that an armed robber may "just want the money" kind of falls by the wayside when you have a woman's store, robbed at 9 AM, with six women shot execution style in the back of the head (one survived). Before that we had the Browns Chicken massacre with seven dead IIRC. Another pair of robbers "just after the money". But decided they didn't want to be ID'd later.

The question is - are you willing to trust your life and the lives of your family and those around you to the "mercy" of an armed robber that might be there just for his next fix money, or may decide, once you are laying on the floor and tied up, that he doesn't want any witnesses, no matter how cooperative you might be.

Here in Illinois we have no choice to make. Our government has decided for us that we will all, by definition, be cooperative victims outside of our homes and even inside them in Chicago and Cook County.

No doubt there was an element of risk shooting back at the robber. But there was also a very real, and possibly greater, risk in just cooperating that has to be considered.

Do you have any guarantees that the clerk, the mother and the child would not have been executed to eliminate witnesses?