It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Robbery suspect shot and killed by intended victim

page: 4
13
<< 1  2  3    5 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 15 2009 @ 08:16 PM
link   
Its sad that a man tried to rob another man. And whats even more sad is that a man has to live with the death of another man on his conscience for the rest of his life.

[edit on 15-1-2009 by kj6754]




posted on Jan, 15 2009 @ 08:22 PM
link   
reply to post by kj6754
 


Not me! I'm grateful that he had the guts to kill the @#$% for endangering his life with the intent to possible kill him. You forget that The resident didn't try to rob the criminal.



posted on Jan, 15 2009 @ 08:32 PM
link   

Originally posted by Saf85
My main point is, people who shoot to kill in defence, are playing God and passing judgement on those they kill.


I hope you get the chance to be morally superior and get blown away by some scumbag after you give him your wallet.



posted on Jan, 16 2009 @ 02:46 AM
link   
I would've done the same thing. Personally, I believe that's how these kinds of situations should be dealt with anyway.





[edit on 16-1-2009 by The Scarecrow]

[edit on 16-1-2009 by The Scarecrow]

[edit on 16-1-2009 by The Scarecrow]



posted on Jan, 16 2009 @ 02:57 AM
link   
I would just like to point something out. lets say hypothetically if guns where banned what would this story look like? Maybe something like this

Robbery Suspect Shots and Kills 2 people in there car while it heats up.

Because you see Banning guns only Bans them from Legal law abiding citizens. It allows the Criminals to run drunk with power. Why would a Government want Criminals to run drunk with power? Why would the Main Stream Media owned by Corpocracy only report Gun conflicts in the negative light to condition you? or is it to condition the Criminals to think they have a higher chance of getting away with crimes? thus provoking them to commit them.

Gun's and Freedom go hand n hand just as poverty and crime do.



posted on Jan, 16 2009 @ 03:00 AM
link   
Well I suppose if you shoot someone you do it properly, after all he had a weapon and ... well that's enough justification, the dude in question was defending 2 people.

Maybe he could of kept a couple of shots back (I'm assuming it was a 6 shooter) in case the guy had a friend hiding in the bushes.

If I was in that situation I would not even be able to shoot the guy! - that's because handguns are outlawed in the UK... The only people who have them are the bad guys



posted on Jan, 16 2009 @ 03:02 AM
link   

Originally posted by centurion1211

Originally posted by Sonya610

Originally posted by RockpuckWhen shooting at someone, you don't stop and give them a chance to fire back .. you unload your clip and hope every bullet found it's mark.


I would feel a bit uneasy unloading completely, especially in that area. I am not suggesting there was excessive force, there is no such thing as excessive force in a situation like that.

I just wonder what he was thinking at the time. Was it panic? Was it just keep shooting until the assailant went down? He could have had a lot more than 6 shots to begin with.

[edit on 15-1-2009 by Sonya610]


If you ever received any hand gun training - and you should if you own a gun. You will be trained to keep shooting until the attack stops. That's all there is to it.


My gun holds 6 bullets, so I suppose I was thinking of my own when I say "keep shooting" ..

As for the area, who doesn't keep ammo in their car if their are licensed to carry it in their vehicle or person? Anyways Centurion, I never understood why "gunophobes" ALWAYS side with the criminal.....



posted on Jan, 16 2009 @ 03:06 AM
link   
Another thing I'd like to say is that robbers don't ALWAYS need guns. Mere intimidation alone is enough to get some victims to hand over the goodies. All they have to is approach a victim, back em into a corner, and menacingly say something along the lines of "hand it here" and they do just that. I know this may sound far fetched, but it's not at all.



posted on Jan, 16 2009 @ 03:08 AM
link   

Originally posted by kj6754
Its sad that a man tried to rob another man. And whats even more sad is that a man has to live with the death of another man on his conscience for the rest of his life.


Yes, but he can live, and his girlfriend can live and also they can spend the small amount of money they had on them however they wish. It's a waste of one life for sure... but how many other people has that guy robbed?



posted on Jan, 16 2009 @ 03:47 AM
link   
reply to post by Raist
 


Take away guns, and only the criminals would have them. This guy would have livd alright. To strong arm rob another law abiding Citizen.

Guns don't kill, people do.

Self Defense is a double edge sword.
Any Prosecutor in their right mind would never attempt a case. The Jury would have a field day and he probably wouldn't get re-elected. Would you vote for someone wo goes after people protecting themselves?

So, no charges, no foul., But he still has to live with the fact a life was ended by his hand.

Sad, really.

If a stranger approached you, and that barrell was staring at you, or say a child, your wife, Mother...

You would regret not having an equaliser as your life unfolds in seconds.

Unless you are Job-like, and somehow forgive and stay strong,

You would live out your days with survivors guilt.

On the other hand, I agree that, in a perfect world,
No guns, No war, no lies, thieves, corruption and politicians.
No Food/Water control Government,
no pot smokers clogging the prisons,
no disease, no mentally/physically challenged,
no sesquipedalienism,
no psychopaths,
no hate,
no locks and no keys.

Until then, bring a knife, or your anti-gun legislation to a gun fight, you'll end up 6th and Green, pushing daisy's.
If you rely on law enforcement in this type of situation, They will bring paper and pen to write a report and interview witnesses, but the crime has long since been completed.

If incompetence was a factor in Not issuing permits or hunting licenses, and as an instument to disarm someone that has proven to be unworthy of safely and properly handling a firearm,
Chenney would be the perfect candidate. If his "accident" was an auto wreck, his insurance would be revoked, license suspended, and jailed for wreckless endangerment.

When He, 41 and 43 give up their arms, If asked at that point, I would kindly reitterate,
"Are you out of your mind?, Are you Dumb? or just Stupid?"
Even Gump could handle a weapon better than most, unlike Chenney, (that is if it were mishandled). It could sometimes be a very clear way to make a point.



posted on Jan, 16 2009 @ 04:11 AM
link   
reply to post by imd12c4funn
 


Pardon me but what are you talking about?

If you read my post I am not for taking away guns I was saying those people would be in this thread soon. I was right not a few posts down there was a poster just like that and I replied to them asking how it was okay for the criminal to rob and threaten someone.

Reading comprehension is your friend. Read my posts again in this thread all three (I believe) of them and you will see where I stand on guns. How if I own guns am I anti gun?


Raist



posted on Jan, 16 2009 @ 04:45 AM
link   
Live by the sword and die by the sword. Don't pull a gun lest you wish to be shot... after all, it's only fair. This idiot got what was coming to him and the beautiful irony that the intended victim came from the Graveyard Tavern was not lost on me! Poetry!

One less looser in the world... surely that's good news!

IRM



posted on Jan, 16 2009 @ 06:55 AM
link   

Originally posted by kj6754
Its sad that a man tried to rob another man. And whats even more sad is that a man has to live with the death of another man on his conscience for the rest of his life.


Now THAT would be an interesting study. Do people suffer guilt all that often in situations like this. Imo is far different that killing other soldiers in war, they are both fighting for a cause and similar in that way.

But an attacker? I just don't see that inspiring a lot of guilt in most gun owners. If anything the man should feel good that he was tested and passed the test.



posted on Jan, 16 2009 @ 07:48 AM
link   
This reminds me of my cousin.


www.justnews.com...

If his mother never took him away from my uncle here in Aruba and carried him to live in some ghetto in the U.S., he would've been alive now.



posted on Jan, 16 2009 @ 07:54 AM
link   

Originally posted by TheBandit795
This reminds me of my cousin.

www.justnews.com...
If his mother never took him away from my uncle here in Aruba and carried him to live in some ghetto in the U.S., he would've been alive now.


That was your cousin? I remember when that story came out. I also recall the family of the dead robbers seemed to think it was very very unfair that a citizen defended himself.

They wanted the Marine charged because they thought he violated their kids rights; apparently they believed robbers should have the right to commit hold-ups and threaten the lives of random people without having to worry about being shot by their intended victim.


[edit on 16-1-2009 by Sonya610]



posted on Jan, 16 2009 @ 08:59 AM
link   
That's what you get when you misuse social services (according to social services, the mother is almost always right), drag a child out of a happy family (my family) and raise him in a ghetto in Florida. My uncle never got to see him and couldn't find him for about 17 years until they finally got in contact with each other about 6 months before the boy got killed.

But anyway I'm going off topic here.



posted on Jan, 16 2009 @ 01:54 PM
link   
reply to post by The Last Man on Earth
 


Pretty easy question if you ask me, the man was obviously acting to protect himself and his girlfriend. If someone is about to possibly take your life then anything goes. Thank god for the 2nd.



posted on Jan, 17 2009 @ 06:17 AM
link   

Originally posted by Resinveins
reply to post by The Last Man on Earth
 


If you threaten my life while I'm holding a gun... your life is forfeit. As far as I'm concerned, you've earned your death by endangering and threatening the life of another.


Tell me, since when did asking for money came to mean threaten life? Even if the asking is done while carrying a gun? Surely responding a simple "no" while carrying a gun would be a more reasonable response than silently emptying a weapon to start with.



posted on Jan, 17 2009 @ 06:49 AM
link   
reply to post by moniker
 


How many times do I have to be shot before I can act as though my life is being threatened? Once? Twice?

Give me a break.



posted on Jan, 17 2009 @ 07:06 AM
link   

Originally posted by moniker

Originally posted by Resinveins
reply to post by The Last Man on Earth
 


If you threaten my life while I'm holding a gun... your life is forfeit. As far as I'm concerned, you've earned your death by endangering and threatening the life of another.


Tell me, since when did asking for money came to mean threaten life? Even if the asking is done while carrying a gun? Surely responding a simple "no" while carrying a gun would be a more reasonable response than silently emptying a weapon to start with.


Your statement has got to be the funniest thing I have heard in a long time. Drug addicts and thugs don't "ask" for money. They demand it and take it by force. Just like telling you dog to sit, heel, or fetch. "Pardon me Fido, could you please come here and sit down" Sounds foolish doesn't it.

If you ever get robbed at gunpoint I'm sure you will change your tune. After you clean up your pants.




top topics



 
13
<< 1  2  3    5 >>

log in

join