2 robbers shot by customer, shakes community

yuppa

Does this still apply to all international soldiers EVEN if they are not in their homeland?

I understand that by you saying 'In defense of themselves and others' you could argue that international soldiers may be seen as liberating others' countries... but that's only in line with their own view - Not necessarily the people of that country they are "liberating".

It's a well known fact that American & British soldiers are killing Taliban & Al Qaeda (I was in fact a British soldier)... but the Taliban & Al Qaeda don't think they are wrong, so who is wrong for killing who? (not based on your personal views or the views of your nation).

To be truthful, I think that in a soldiers case it boils down to who fires the first shot. That's what usually kicks things off in the first place. The first shot is with murderous intent, while everything else is in self defense or the defense of others.

mymymy

TDawgRex

IvanAstikov
reply to post by alienreality

 

Do you really believe he told them to stop before he had his gun drawn and pointing at them? Is that the job of members of the public, whatever their military experience? The mention of the robbers pulling out their own guns before being shot suggests that they weren't brandishing them before The Hero shouted "Stop!" at them, hence they were no threat to him if he'd just minded his own business.

The guy just exercised "Gun Control".

Which means being able to hit what you are aiming at.

That's "Gun Control" that I stand 100% behind.

and yet people here claim the military won't fire on its own lol Give anyone a "story" like this and it's all justified and cheered

I would never fire upon my fellow citizens...unless it was justified. However, if some one is harming or threatening to others, and the shot was clean, I would take it.

spirited75
reply to post by crazyewok

 

keep your opinions about the American gun possession in the uk.
you guys were losing the last big war and were begging for us citizens to send their privately owned weapons over there to your island so that you would not be speaking German.

O look another yanky doodle who cant read and one with little history knowlage to boot!

Ok lets leave the history BS to one side.

In no point did i say the usa should ban guns or use gun control.
Hell i even said shooting the robbers was justifeid.

What i said is we shouldnt be cheering and getting exsited, that when guns have to be resorted to its a seroius and sad matter that never should be taken lightly.

spirited75
reply to post by crazyewok

 

you guys were losing the last big war and were begging for us citizens to send their privately owned weapons over there to your island so that you would not be speaking German.

You know what I’m going to bite. I hate historical ignorance!

First of all we were not losing the war, it got a bit hairy but we never were losing, British planes fought a battle called the battle of Britain with no Americans involved. When we won that we had Air supremacy over the channel which meant no invasion could ever succeed.

Secondly that’s nonsense about American private gun owners being needed or sending their guns over. BS. Britain was fine with small arms, hell we even gave some to you. It was tanks, ships and motor vehicle that we needed as well as raw materials.


Thirdly WW2 was a team effort without the UK there would have been no D day, without Britain’s commonwealth navy 1/4 of your pacific fleet would have been gone and no battle of Burma that tied up hundreds of thousands of Japanese troops. If you want to pin the title of country that "won WW2" you need to look at Russia first seeing as they accounted for 9/10 German deaths and destroyed most there equipment.

mymymy

and yet people here claim the military won't fire on its own lol Give anyone a "story" like this and it's all justified and cheered

I am ex-military and very proud of the time I served, and I am here to tell you that I would never fire on a citizen that is not performing an act of violence against another. Pulling or brandishing their weapons is an act of violence and justification for self-defense, up to and including the use of deadly force.

This man was not being ordered to fire upon unarmed, or even armed civilians that were remaining peaceful. He saw a violent crime being committed and chose to perform his civic duty and try to stop the perpetrators, with full knowledge that this could involve himself or them being shot. He was a faster and better shot than they were. Their bad luck.

I applaud this man for putting himself in harm's way in order to do what was the right thing to do.

If you have the time to pull out a gun to shoot the bad guys, then you have enough time to aim a bit lower and shoot their legs or arm to disarm them. legs and thighs are as big of a target on someone as the chest or a head which is a smaller target which seems popular by stupid armed men.

Is that so hard, why shoot to kill, it takes no more time either way.

also these bad guys were causing no more threat if they were running away, so intercepting them and shooting them was not warranted, thats the job of police.

reply to post by opethPA


You can be sure that Pierce Morgan will not be reporting on this story.

reply to post by thenaturalist


No, their job is to round people up for jail, not shoot people. They were running while armed, that warranted getting shot, and I strongly believe that if you go out and rob someone's store you should get what's coming to you. If you don't abide by society's (logical) rules, then you're an outcast. Armed robbery warrants getting shot if caught because it becomes dangerous for everyone that's around.

thenaturalist

If you have the time to pull out a gun to shoot the bad guys, then you have enough time to aim a bit lower and shoot their legs or arm to disarm them. legs and thighs are as big of a target on someone as the chest or a head which is a smaller target which seems popular by stupid armed men.

Is that so hard, why shoot to kill, it takes no more time either way.

If you shoot to wound then you risk them killing you. This guy saw 2 guys with guns commit a crime, he was prepared to die to stop them long enough for the police to get there. He gave them a warning to stop and instead of doing so they pulled on him so he killed them. If they were willing to use a gun in a robbery then chances are they have killed before or at some point they would have killed someone on purpose or by accident. The fact that they pulled on him instead of stopping like he told them to makes me lean more towards they have probably killed before. He killed them first so this time they lost.

I personally was taught NEVER brandish a weapon if don't intend/aren't prepared for someone to die. If you feel threatened enough to ever point a gun at someone you need to be able to back it up or don't pull it in the first place. If you brandish a gun without intent to kill accidents can happen or your weapon can be taken from you, or they can and probably will shoot you first.

If the situation can be defused by wounding someone then you probably didn't need the gun in the first place. Never pull a weapon against someone unless you are in fear of your life period. And if you are in fear of your life then kill them first or be ready to die. It's pretty simple.

People now a days using guns as scare tactics are scarier to me than someone with intent to kill to protect themselves (especially if they aren't practiced shots who can actually hit what they aim at) because the potential for accidental shootings raises exponentially. You're scared, the adrenaline is flowing and you're probably shaking, see where this is going?

And criminals flashing their guns to intimidate don't care that with every wave of the weapon, usually while holding it up in the air sideways at angle to look cool and cussing and getting all puffed up like a rooster preparing to fight, can and will kill "innocent" bystanders, heh. But then they are criminals so I guess we shouldn't expect them to care. So unless you want to be lumped in with the roosters don't ever pull a gun on a person unless they are going to kill you and you need to kill them first.


Lil

reply to post by TDawgRex


You would be wrong actually. Soldiers go into a zone where if they see a weapon drawn they can assume that if they are seen they will be fired at. No it is possible to shoot someone without pre meditation and ill will. Most soldiers in the US army are told to only fire back if they are fired on now a days though if the enemies are not clearly marked in uniforms. If they have uniforms on and openly carrying weapons in a designated war zone they are not committing muder.

thenaturalist
If you have the time to pull out a gun to shoot the bad guys, then you have enough time to aim a bit lower and shoot their legs or arm to disarm them. legs and thighs are as big of a target on someone as the chest or a head which is a smaller target which seems popular by stupid armed men.

Is that so hard, why shoot to kill, it takes no more time either way.

I'm sure you can do that when you are in the same situation that he was in...report back to us how you make out, if you don't miss, or get shot in return. See, people don't hold guns with their legs, feet, or toes. They hold them with their hands, and fire back if injured.

yuppa
reply to post by TDawgRex

 

You would be wrong actually. Soldiers go into a zone where if they see a weapon drawn they can assume that if they are seen they will be fired at. No it is possible to shoot someone without pre meditation and ill will. Most soldiers in the US army are told to only fire back if they are fired on now a days though if the enemies are not clearly marked in uniforms. If they have uniforms on and openly carrying weapons in a designated war zone they are not committing muder.

I disagree. I have three decades under my belt being a Soldier. If I ever caught one of my guys in the "Zone" or zoning out I would plant a boot square in their ghoulies, followed by a swift kick to their ass.

I've always taught my guys to have situational awareness. And if they kill a pregnant women who is shooting at them...I'll sleep like a baby. It's better to be judged by twelve than carried by six.

I've stated before and will do so again. There is a BIG difference between murder and killing.

thenaturalist
If you have the time to pull out a gun to shoot the bad guys, then you have enough time to aim a bit lower and shoot their legs or arm to disarm them. legs and thighs are as big of a target on someone as the chest or a head which is a smaller target which seems popular by stupid armed men.

Is that so hard, why shoot to kill, it takes no more time either way.

If you feel your life is in danger enough to use a gun - you can't shoot to wound (but you can just say that you missed their center mass and shot their arm by mistake - same goes for warning shots, just say you missed)

thenaturalist
If you have the time to pull out a gun to shoot the bad guys, then you have enough time to aim a bit lower and shoot their legs or arm to disarm them. legs and thighs are as big of a target on someone as the chest or a head which is a smaller target which seems popular by stupid armed men.

Is that so hard, why shoot to kill, it takes no more time either way.

Actually, it takes one hell of a lot more time to aim at an arm or leg, which are also significantly smaller a target than the chest (aka...center-of-mass, the preferred target of any person properly trained to shoot). In a situation such as this, you have, at most, a second to respond to the threat (probably far less). A properly trained person will always aim at center-of-mass, and never shot to maim, unless, of course, they want to be the victim in said situation.

TDawgRex

yuppa
reply to post by TDawgRex

 

You would be wrong actually. Soldiers go into a zone where if they see a weapon drawn they can assume that if they are seen they will be fired at. No it is possible to shoot someone without pre meditation and ill will. Most soldiers in the US army are told to only fire back if they are fired on now a days though if the enemies are not clearly marked in uniforms. If they have uniforms on and openly carrying weapons in a designated war zone they are not committing muder.

I disagree. I have three decades under my belt being a Soldier. If I ever caught one of my guys in the "Zone" or zoning out I would plant a boot square in their ghoulies, followed by a swift kick to their ass.

I've always taught my guys to have situational awareness. And if they kill a pregnant women who is shooting at them...I'll sleep like a baby. It's better to be judged by twelve than carried by six.

I've stated before and will do so again. There is a BIG difference between murder and killing.

Brilliantly said =)

Mentally I have no problem killing if the situation demands it (ie: life in danger), but murder... I don't have the capacity to do this. The problem I think when it comes to those in the military is that they debate that in their mind and what did they do, did they kill or did they murder? They did have a gun pointing at you but what are you doing over there on their turf? That's why there are battlefield psychologists.

reply to post by TDawgRex



Sorry I was not totally clear on "the zone" I meant the area of operation where enemies are known to be operating. A free fire zone if you prefeer. Havent you ever been sent into alocation where if someone is armed clearly and they point them at you you can fire at them? It sliek how a policeman has a split second to see if he is going to live or die.

yuppa
reply to post by TDawgRex

 

Sorry I was not totally clear on "the zone" I meant the area of operation where enemies are known to be operating. A free fire zone if you prefeer. Havent you ever been sent into alocation where if someone is armed clearly and they point them at you you can fire at them? It sliek how a policeman has a split second to see if he is going to live or die.

I've had Iraqi policemen point their weapons at me plenty of times, though I've never pulled the trigger. It's called fire discipline. They didn't mean to do it in my case.

Situation dictates also applies.

reply to post by Vortiki


I first "heard" that phrase while reading Isaac Asimov's book The Moon is a Harsh Mistress . It is as true a statement as I have ever heard.

reply to post by CommandoJoe

Posting all the quotes from the Notebook of Lazarus Long would make an interesting post. For the less informed, Robert A. Heinlein created Lazarus and numerous other personalities. He is the Grand Master of Science Fiction. His "Future History" is very close to what is happening today, and probably tomorrow. Mind you, he wrote it all more than fifty years ago. Thing 1984 is scary, try his worlds.