Crime Texan wouldn't mind his own business... SHOOTS a thief DEAD

[LangfordBarrow]

Hard pass for me.

I simply don't trust other people enough to tolerate them shooting based on what they think is happening.

If they thought wrong then they will be prosecuted.

 

[Chad R. Thundercock]

You was on LiveLeak too? Lol

Reddit.

Liveleak stopped being interesting after they stopped hosting graphic videos.

 

[Deleted member 592570]

That's a whole different scenario I don't agree with as much as this case.

Sure but it's the mindless woke mob he was to worry about. Not reasonable people.

 

[LangfordBarrow]

Surprised you feel that way

I'm literally a registered Republican and NRA life member since '92. This board is so skewed though that I'm considered a far lefty...

 

[LangfordBarrow]

- But a civilian doesnt has the power to decide that?
Even a cop wound get in problems no?

We dont know if he was gonna make more crimes. Its just a assumption!

If the facts establish this was a violent armed robbery then the civilian is in the clear. I'm not losing any sleep if this guy pistol whipped someone to steal their wallet.

 

[LangfordBarrow]

Sure, but you can't shoot people based on things like "the crime might not get solved" or "the criminal may act again".

If you're shooting someone, you're presumably doing that to actively save a life or lives, which doesn't seem to be apparent here.

Anything below that threshold doesn't justify this level of force for me.

The guy committed a violent armed robbery in front of this guy. We can't just assume he didn't witness what happened. If we follow the facts it was a good shoot.

 

[Deleted member 585708]

The guy committed a violent armed robbery in front of this guy. We can't just assume he didn't witness what happened. If we follow the facts it was a good shoot.

I just don't agree, man.

Lethal force, for me, should be used only in life threatening situations.

Doesn't matter if it's the police or a citizen.

I get that our thresholds are slightly apart here, but that's my stance and I see absolutely no reason or logic to think that stance is wrong.

 

[mb23100]

should have gotten a medal of honor

Sharpshooter trophy as well

 

[Deleted member 592570]

I just don't agree, man.

Lethal force, for me, should be used only in life threatening situations.

Doesn't matter if it's the police or a citizen.

I get that our thresholds are slightly apart here, but that's my stance and I see absolutely no reason or logic to think that stance is wrong.

The victim was assaulted with a deadly weapon. This was armed robbery and assault with a deadly weapon. It's perfectly reasonable to think the robber would shoot the guy after. Happens all the time.

 

[Deleted member 585708]

The victim was assaulted with a deadly weapon. This was armed robbery and assault with a deadly weapon. It's perfectly reasonable to think the robber would shoot the guy after. Happens all the time.

I get it, I hear what you're saying, quite a few of you guys have said this, but no.

I don't believe in killing people in revenge.

If the guy had been shot before he managed to pistol whip the other dude, okay, I think that's extreme, but you're potentially saving a life.

If the guy had been shot afterwards, which I believe is the case, then no: that is not acceptable. You cannot just kill someone for hurting someone else.

It makes zero sense to apply a "but he shot him around the time of the crime" qualifier when anyone of sound mind recognizes that if he'd shot him the next day, it would be wrong. Shooting him after the event is wrong whether it's one minute or one year after.

 

[Rob Battisti]

I'm literally a registered Republican and NRA life member since '92. This board is so skewed though that I'm considered a far lefty...

I always thought you were basically center left

 

[DiddlyDoodly]

I just don't agree, man.

Lethal force, for me, should be used only in life threatening situations.

Doesn't matter if it's the police or a citizen.

I get that our thresholds are slightly apart here, but that's my stance and I see absolutely no reason or logic to think that stance is wrong.

If you get into a situation with someone and they pull a gun and you pull a gun, how do you know that if that someone who is running with a gun isn't trying to get to a cover spot or a better vantage point to fire at you?

See, that is why I don't care if a cop shoots someone in the back who is running with a gun. You have no idea what they might try and do.

 

[Deleted member 585708]

If you get into a situation with someone and they pull a gun and you pull a gun, how do you know that if that someone who is running with a gun isn't trying to get to a cover spot or a better vantage point to fire at you?

See, that is why I don't care if a cop shoots someone in the back who is running with a gun. You have no idea what they might try and do.

I just wouldn't ever agree with killing someone based on what they might or might not do.

There's just too much room for human error.

 

[Confucamus]

Sure, but you can't shoot people based on things like "the crime might not get solved" or "the criminal may act again".

If you're shooting someone, you're presumably doing that to actively save a life or lives, which doesn't seem to be apparent here.

Anything below that threshold doesn't justify this level of force for me.

He has every reason to believe there were lives in danger. He was shooting to stop the threat. Life isn't a movie.

 

[Deleted member 585708]

He has every reason to believe there were lives in danger. He was shooting to stop the threat. Life isn't a movie.

What do you mean? What was the criminal about to do to kill someone?

 

[LangfordBarrow]

I get it, I hear what you're saying, quite a few of you guys have said this, but no.

I don't believe in killing people in revenge.

If the guy had been shot before he managed to pistol whip the other dude, okay, I think that's extreme, but you're potentially saving a life.

If the guy had been shot afterwards, which I believe is the case, then no: that is not acceptable. You cannot just kill someone for hurting someone else.

It makes zero sense to apply a "but he shot him around the time of the crime" qualifier when anyone of sound mind recognizes that if he'd shot him the next day, it would be wrong. Shooting him after the event is wrong whether it's one minute or one year after.

He was shot in the act of committing a crime...

 

[Deleted member 585708]

He was shot in the act of committing a crime...

I'm just going on what the video says: "A man is dead after he robbed a person pumping gas and was shot seconds later."

Seconds later is too late for extrajudicial killing.

 

[LangfordBarrow]

I always thought you were basically center left

I'm socially more liberal but when God sorts us out I'll probably be in a conservative cell block. Which sounds funny because I'm also secular. If I had to paint myself I'm the hetero version of @Deorum that was raised in a big city instead of out in a big rural state like ND.

 

[Rob Battisti]

I'm socially more liberal but when God sorts us out I'll probably be in a conservative cell block. Which sounds funny because I'm also secular. If I had to paint myself I'm the hetero version of @Deorum that was raised in a big city instead of out in a big rural state like ND.

We’re all just Hetero @Deorum tbh

 

[nostradumbass]

I dont feel sorry for the dude believe me. But even a cop wouldn't shoot a guy in the back running away from a robbery imo.

What would the cops do to the guy with a gun fleeing a violent crime?

What do you mean? What was the criminal about to do to kill someone?

Should you chase after a guy with a gun and throw loose change at him, or does having a gun mean you have a free pass to commit violent crimes then leave?

Do you suspect the guy who just pistol whipped somebody pumping gas to steal their wallet was going to retire from crime after that one if nobody stopped him, or do you think he'd go and do the same thing to other people too?