Welcome to your Green Bay Packers Online Community!

Since 2006, PackersHome has been providing a unique experience for fans.
Your participation is greatly anticipated!
Login or Register.
3 Pages<123>
Options
View
Go to last post Go to first unread
Offline Zero2Cool  
#16 Posted : Sunday, January 18, 2009 10:51:54 PM(UTC)
Zero2Cool

Rank: Legend

Yahoo! Fantasy Football - Gold: 2009FleaFlicker Fantasy Football - Silver: 2010Yahoo! NCAA March Madness - Silver: 2011ESPN NCAA March Madness - Bronze: 2010Yahoo! NCAA March Madness - Bronze: 2013

United States
Posts: 25,613
Joined: 10/13/2006(UTC)
Location: Green Bay, WI

Applause Given: 1,832
Applause Received: 1,978

I see the point about after the robber was knocked down to drive away, but bullets go through metal and glass fairly well. Depending on the area, I have to disagree with that thought.

Who's to say that after the guy got the goods he didn't put a slug in them anyways because they seen his face? The fact is, you do not know. I don't know one should react in that situation, but I do not feel sorry for the fella who pulled a gun on someone and got killed. You threaten someones safety, you don't deserve to be on this planet with us.

My thought is if you pull a gun on someone, you can't bitch about a gun being pulled on you. to say you should just let someone harm you so you survive is bullshit. Ask a rape victim about that one.

That bodes a question. I can't speak from experience, but I'm thinking defending yourself is easier to deal with than having your freedom ripped out from you and dealing with that for life.

UserPostedImage
Click here and find the LATEST Packers News!
Offline vegOmatic  
#17 Posted : Monday, January 19, 2009 12:28:11 AM(UTC)
vegOmatic

Rank: 5th Round Draft Pick

Posts: 505
Joined: 8/11/2008(UTC)

Applause Received: 3

Originally Posted by: " Go to Quoted Post
Originally Posted by: " Go to Quoted Post
Reading these kind of articles makes me shake my head.

Anyone consider the fact that if the "victim" didn't have a weapon, he probably wouldn't have moved to shove open the door which would have been unlikely to startle the robber into pulling out a weapon?

This is legal murder. That's what it is. Shove the dude, let him pull out a weapon and then blast away. And hey, no problem, it was "self defence".


i can't believe that anybody is actually defending this guys actions. the only "victim" here is the guy who got shot...PERIOD!!!!

how many opportunities did this idiot & his girlfriend have to just friggin drive away? why the hell did he roll his window down? he knocked the guy to the ground & THEN got out of the vehicle & shot him...not once, not twice, but MULTIPLE TIMES??? GIVE ME A BREAK GUYS!!!

i don't advocate gun control but it's COMPLETE IDIOT AZZHOLES like this who "ruin" it for those of you who ARE diligent & law abiding citizens. why the heck y'all can't see that is beyond me!!

rant...over! btw, my fiance' who wants the laws to allow concealed weapons totally agrees with me in this case. :D


I can tell you've never been robbed. The director doesn't yell CUT when someone doesn't follow your script.
blank
Offline TheEngineer  
#18 Posted : Monday, January 19, 2009 7:41:19 AM(UTC)
TheEngineer

Rank: 5th Round Draft Pick

Posts: 1,621
Joined: 8/8/2008(UTC)


I cannot accept the opinion that moving first by taking this person's life was the safer option.

This may have "worked" in this instance but the notion of antagonising someone, of whom you have no idea on their physical or mental capacity is a dangerous one. There's a reason why the police suggest people to co-operate with criminals.
blank
Offline Blitz  
#19 Posted : Monday, January 19, 2009 8:34:48 AM(UTC)
Blitz

Rank: 6th Round Draft Pick

Posts: 231
Joined: 10/12/2008(UTC)

Applause Given: 7
Applause Received: 16

Quote:
Their dancing instructor told them that one of the East Atlanta bars, Graveyard Tavern, had big band nights,


This should have been his first clue.
blank
Offline 4PackGirl  
#20 Posted : Monday, January 19, 2009 10:26:35 AM(UTC)
4PackGirl

Rank: 1st Round Draft Pick

Posts: 2,252
Joined: 12/17/2006(UTC)
Location: illinois

Applause Given2: 150
Applause Received: 122

Originally Posted by: " Go to Quoted Post
Originally Posted by: " Go to Quoted Post
Originally Posted by: " Go to Quoted Post
Reading these kind of articles makes me shake my head.

Anyone consider the fact that if the "victim" didn't have a weapon, he probably wouldn't have moved to shove open the door which would have been unlikely to startle the robber into pulling out a weapon?

This is legal murder. That's what it is. Shove the dude, let him pull out a weapon and then blast away. And hey, no problem, it was "self defence".


i can't believe that anybody is actually defending this guys actions. the only "victim" here is the guy who got shot...PERIOD!!!!

how many opportunities did this idiot & his girlfriend have to just friggin drive away? why the hell did he roll his window down? he knocked the guy to the ground & THEN got out of the vehicle & shot him...not once, not twice, but MULTIPLE TIMES??? GIVE ME A BREAK GUYS!!!

i don't advocate gun control but it's COMPLETE IDIOT AZZHOLES like this who "ruin" it for those of you who ARE diligent & law abiding citizens. why the heck y'all can't see that is beyond me!!

rant...over! btw, my fiance' who wants the laws to allow concealed weapons totally agrees with me in this case. :D


I can tell you've never been robbed. The director doesn't yell CUT when someone doesn't follow your script.


no i've never been robbed - what does that have to do with it? i can't believe anyone is still saying what this guy did is ok. he had ample opportunity to simply drive away. what are the chances a bullet (if the guy even SHOT the freakin gun) would hit him or his girlfriend in a moving vehicle? i understand being a gun proponent but burying your head in the sand about THIS instance & defending the guy is just stupidity. you are defending a person who HELPS keep concealed weapons out of your hands - what sense does THAT make?? do you see my point in ANY WAY SHAPE OR FORM??

oh & another thing - how the hell do ANY of us know what the guys intentions were - he's dead! so now we can read minds i guess, huh? did anybody ever consider he pulled it to defend himself against the guy who just shoved him to the ground?? WHY do we assume he was trying to rob them? i see absolutely NO difference between the two guys - each was carrying a weapon. why is it because one guy "got the drop" on the other guy is he suddenly a hero & did the right thing?
UserPostedImage
Offline Zero2Cool  
#21 Posted : Monday, January 19, 2009 11:13:31 AM(UTC)
Zero2Cool

Rank: Legend

Yahoo! Fantasy Football - Gold: 2009FleaFlicker Fantasy Football - Silver: 2010Yahoo! NCAA March Madness - Silver: 2011ESPN NCAA March Madness - Bronze: 2010Yahoo! NCAA March Madness - Bronze: 2013

United States
Posts: 25,613
Joined: 10/13/2006(UTC)
Location: Green Bay, WI

Applause Given: 1,832
Applause Received: 1,978

Originally Posted by: " Go to Quoted Post
I cannot accept the opinion that moving first by taking this person's life was the safer option.
That is very true. It's easy to say what else should have been done, but without being there you don't really know what options there were.

One would hope that he only shot to immobilize the robber in hopes of taking his weapon and then leave so they don't get shot while driving away. However, its not as if everyone has being robbed planned out and will think of these things on the fly, nor will have the collectiveness to carry out a scenario that keeps all individuals alive and well.

UserPostedImage
Click here and find the LATEST Packers News!
Offline Nonstopdrivel  
#22 Posted : Monday, January 19, 2009 4:56:13 PM(UTC)
Nonstopdrivel

Rank: Hall of Famer

United States
Posts: 11,689
Joined: 9/14/2008(UTC)
Location: Germany

Applause Given: 364
Applause Received: 263

Originally Posted by: " Go to Quoted Post
That story was just one more piece of proof that you have to be able to protect yourself in today's world. It's sad that it's come to that, but it is what it is.


People of every era and every age have always had to protect themselves, Cheesey. That's why the Founding Fathers implemented the 2nd Amendment almost 220 years ago.

People used to carry daggers and swords to protect themselves. In the medieval period, only the nobility could carry swords, precisely because they were afraid of the potential power of the peasantry. Now people carry guns. Human nature hasn't changed, only the technology available.

What I find sickening is that in Wisconsin (one of only two states which has yet to implement a concealed-carry law), even though it's not illegal to carry an unconcealed weapon, in most jurisdictions, anyone who tries to do that will promptly be arrested for disturbing the peace. All someone has to do is call the police and complain that they feel "threatened."

For all practical purposes, there is NO right to bear arms in the state of Wisconsin.
UserPostedImage
Offline Nonstopdrivel  
#23 Posted : Monday, January 19, 2009 5:08:46 PM(UTC)
Nonstopdrivel

Rank: Hall of Famer

United States
Posts: 11,689
Joined: 9/14/2008(UTC)
Location: Germany

Applause Given: 364
Applause Received: 263

As for those of you who are condemning this man's actions, all I have to say is that I hope none of you are ever in this situation. Trying to apply rationality to a situation that requires instant reliance upon instincts is the surest ticket to death.

And for the objection that this guy should have driven away, let me point out that from the bare-bones account in this article, you have absolutely no idea what this situation's logistical constraints were. Sure, it's possible that this guy had a sudden bloodthirsty urge to kill, but it's equally possible it wouldn't have been safe for him to drive away.

You say it's statistically improbable that either he or his girlfriend would have been struck by a bullet in a speeding truck. While that may certainly be true (tell that to victims of drive-by shootings), you're neglecting the possibilities for collateral damage. What if the would-be robber's bullets struck not the truck but a nearby elderly or pregnant woman -- or went through a window and killed a child? By keeping this engagement to close quarters, the man was able to virtually eliminate any risk of collateral damage.

Had he merely fled the scene to save his own skin and someone else been killed, one could have argued (not legally, but morally) that he was, in essence, an accessory to murder.
UserPostedImage
Offline 4PackGirl  
#24 Posted : Monday, January 19, 2009 6:15:09 PM(UTC)
4PackGirl

Rank: 1st Round Draft Pick

Posts: 2,252
Joined: 12/17/2006(UTC)
Location: illinois

Applause Given2: 150
Applause Received: 122

there are a multitude of scenarios in this situation that could have gone either way. it could have ended better OR worse. i'll give you the worse BUT you cannot prove to me that there is NO WAY possible this situation could have ended better.

i took the contrary side of this in the hopes that minds would be opened & another viewpoint could be taken into account but clearly that didn't happen. that's just sad.
UserPostedImage
Offline Nonstopdrivel  
#25 Posted : Monday, January 19, 2009 6:22:28 PM(UTC)
Nonstopdrivel

Rank: Hall of Famer

United States
Posts: 11,689
Joined: 9/14/2008(UTC)
Location: Germany

Applause Given: 364
Applause Received: 263

Your argument is that allowing a gun-toting would-be robber to live is inherently a better outcome than disposing of him. I'm not convinced that's true. Even granting that it could be true, as a husband and father, I'm not willing to take that risk, and I don't believe most of the other men on this site are either. If I have to choose the life and safety of the family God has entrusted to me over that of someone who represents a threat to the former, I won't lose a moment's sleep over it.

And this is coming from a guy who had to be verbally ordered to point his weapon at women and children in Iraq because doing so caused him so much mental anguish.
UserPostedImage
Offline 4PackGirl  
#26 Posted : Monday, January 19, 2009 7:01:03 PM(UTC)
4PackGirl

Rank: 1st Round Draft Pick

Posts: 2,252
Joined: 12/17/2006(UTC)
Location: illinois

Applause Given2: 150
Applause Received: 122

trust me, if it was somebody trying to harm my family, i'd have killed the sob with my own two hands - just because i'm a woman doesn't mean i can't or won't protect my family. but that's not what this was - you know it & so does every one else who read the article.

one thing i've always valued the most in my life is my freedom to feel how i want to about any given subject & if i learn something new, i also have the right change my mind.
UserPostedImage
Offline Pack93z  
#27 Posted : Monday, January 19, 2009 7:02:36 PM(UTC)
Pack93z

Rank: Hall of Famer

PackersHome NFL Pick'em - Bronze: 2012

United States
Posts: 12,736
Joined: 3/16/2007(UTC)
Location: North Central Wisconsin

Applause Given: 380
Applause Received: 1,017

While I won't criticize the man for taking action... was lethal force necessary?

Maybe, maybe not.

What if the suspect was merely asking for direction or needed some type of help.. walks up to the pickup and sees a man pulling a pistol out of his glove box. Since he now fears for his safety, starts to reach for his gun that he carries for protection as well.

But he never gets to use the weapon or doesn't pull the trigger?

Not saying that is likely, but knocking the guy over and starting to shoot doesn't sound like a sound approach either.

We don't know if the guy in the pickup gave any warning? We don't know if the suspect has threatening with words..

But to the point, was lethal force necessary?

With the evidence at hand.. inconclusive at best in my opinion.

The absolute last course of action by any person should be deadly force... any person, period.

You are giving that person the right of judge, jury and executioner in one brief moment.. to much power for any given person IMO.
I think when there's enough will and aggression, there's no shortage of talent either.

UserPostedImage
Offline Zero2Cool  
#28 Posted : Monday, January 19, 2009 7:18:17 PM(UTC)
Zero2Cool

Rank: Legend

Yahoo! Fantasy Football - Gold: 2009FleaFlicker Fantasy Football - Silver: 2010Yahoo! NCAA March Madness - Silver: 2011ESPN NCAA March Madness - Bronze: 2010Yahoo! NCAA March Madness - Bronze: 2013

United States
Posts: 25,613
Joined: 10/13/2006(UTC)
Location: Green Bay, WI

Applause Given: 1,832
Applause Received: 1,978

I only agree with lethal force if lethal force was believed to be threaten on him or others. You can't wait around and wait for the first shot or wonder if its loaded or not.

I've never been in that situation, but I'd like to think that after the first shot or two that connected I would have stopped shooting and made an effort to remove the weapon from the robber and phone the police. But if the robber kept moving for his gun, obviously, he wanted to use it.

It's a really tough thing to say DEFINITELY this or that because theres SOO many variables that could take place. This is a far more difficult discussion than I had anticipated.

UserPostedImage
Click here and find the LATEST Packers News!
Offline TheEngineer  
#29 Posted : Monday, January 19, 2009 7:39:37 PM(UTC)
TheEngineer

Rank: 5th Round Draft Pick

Posts: 1,621
Joined: 8/8/2008(UTC)


Originally Posted by: " Go to Quoted Post
As for those of you who are condemning this man's actions, all I have to say is that I hope none of you are ever in this situation. Trying to apply rationality to a situation that requires instant reliance upon instincts is the surest ticket to death.


I disagree. Acting foolishly upon a whim is the surest ticket to death. In my opinion, the proper course of action is to oblige with the robber's demands. It is far more dangerous to try and take the situation into your own hands and try to come out the victor.

Reminds me of those stories of martial arts experts who found themselves in a fight with people on the street and getting fatally stabbed, thinking their some hot shot because they have skills and didn't run away or co-operate.
blank
Offline Nonstopdrivel  
#30 Posted : Monday, January 19, 2009 9:00:29 PM(UTC)
Nonstopdrivel

Rank: Hall of Famer

United States
Posts: 11,689
Joined: 9/14/2008(UTC)
Location: Germany

Applause Given: 364
Applause Received: 263

I don't want the hard-line stance I've taken to be taken the wrong way. The more I think about this story, the more it bothers me. I'm still not convinced that lethal force was, in fact, justified here. I don't see any evidence of proper escalation of force in the man's actions. (If someone with a weapon on his lap slammed a car door into me and started to exit his vehicle, I'd probably reach for my weapon too.)

I think the real question here was of the guy's intent. Was he actually intending to rob this couple? I'm not convinced the evidence actually indicates that he was, which troubles me. It unnerves me that several people in this thread have implied that carrying a weapon -- reaching for a weapon -- necessarily implies criminal intent. After all, the guy in the pickup truck reached for a weapon. By that logic, he is indeed the criminal here. Perhaps the "robber," intending to, say, ask for directions, was simply carrying a weapon for self-defense purposes and panicked when the man in the pickup showed aggression.

As for TheEngineer's assertion that the best way to survive an encounter with a criminal is to acquiesce to his demands, I agree to an extent. I couldn't care less about money or even material possessions. If all he wants is my cash, fine. (If he wants to rape my wife, NOT FINE.) The problem here is that this guy was packing heat. It is not unheard-of for a robber to shoot his victims even after they acquiesce to his demands, simply because as eyewitnesses, they now represent a liability. That's not a risk I'm willing to take -- and I don't think I have the moral right to subject my family to that risk, either.

Was lethal force necessary in this instance? None of us knows -- we weren't there. Was it necessary to pump an entire magazine into the guy? I doubt it; in fact, I find it disturbing that he did. It sounds to me like he got carried away and succumbed to bloodlust (see 1:36 below). At this comfortable vantage point, I'm tempted to say, "Put a couple of rounds in the guy, then call the authorities" -- and indeed, that's probably what I'd do.

On the other hand, do you really want to deal with the possibility of a pissed-off criminal, whom you shot and turned in, stalking your family after being released from prison in a couple of years?
[youtube]D0Cw-Ddf1ro[/youtube]
UserPostedImage
Rss Feed 
Users browsing this topic
Guest
3 Pages<123>
Forum Jump  
You cannot post new topics in this forum.
You cannot reply to topics in this forum.
You cannot delete your posts in this forum.
You cannot edit your posts in this forum.
You cannot create polls in this forum.
You cannot vote in polls in this forum.

Notification

Icon
Error



Recent Topics
11m / Green Bay Packers Talk / DakotaT

17m / Random Babble / DakotaT

35m / Green Bay Packers Talk / DoddPower

2h / Green Bay Packers Talk / musccy

6h / Fantasy Sports Talk / Zero2Cool

8h / Green Bay Packers Talk / Wade

10h / Green Bay Packers Talk / Dulak

10h / Green Bay Packers Talk / Mucky Tundra

19h / Green Bay Packers Talk / beast

21h / Random Babble / dhazer

22h / Green Bay Packers Talk / Tezzy

21-Jul / Around The NFL / musccy

21-Jul / Green Bay Packers Talk / beast

21-Jul / Random Babble / wpr

20-Jul / Green Bay Packers Talk / beast


Tweeter

Copyright © 2006-2014 PackersHome.com™. All Rights Reserved.