Ohio Taco Bell Workers Kill Shoots And Kills Armed Robber As Second Robber Flees

Submitted by: trimble 1 month ago in News & Politics


Police don't prevent crime, they investigate it. Armed citizens on the other hand do.



There are 112 comments:
Male 404
The robbers were armed citizens, not Aliens from Mars.
0
Reply
Male 40,764

The only really sad part is: those 3 will undoubtedly be fired (no pun intended) for this.

Chains like that have rules to protect their bottom line, not to protect their employees: lawyers first, minimum wagers last on the totem pole.

But it sure will look good on their resumes!! :-)
-1
Reply
Male 4,242
So nice to endanger all your co-workers to save $40.
I like how everybody's Pro the death penalty no matter how minor the crime.
3
Reply
Male 84
dm2754 If they had walked in and picked up $40 worth of merchandise and left with it , I would totally agree with you, but that is not what they did.  If anyone threatens  someones life with a deadly weapon to force an ultimatum, deadly action is a completely  appropriate response.  There have been lots of people who complied with what the robber wanted and then got shot right afterwards.  I'm not okay with a world where you are not allowed to protect yourself from violent threats.  Are you supposed to comply with anything a criminal wants and just hope they don't kill you, and that the police will catch them later?
0
Reply
Male 1,018
dm2754 Yeah but they got to kill someone and don't have to go to jail! That must be great.
0
Reply
Female 4,429
dm2754 armed robbery is a 1st degree felony, hardly a 'minor crime" 
-1
Reply
Male 859
Police don't prevent crime, they investigate it.

People decide to commit the crimes.  We are free to make our own decisions, for good or for bad.

Armed citizens on the other hand do.

Do what ?  Armed citizens commit crimes, too.  They don't investigate them unless they are police.  Sometimes, an armed person may prevent a crime or it causes more crimes.  Unarmed people prevent crimes all the time, as well.

----

Ending another human's life is always an evil act.
3
Reply
Male 40,764
punko You are deliberately being obtuse.

How does defending one's self 'cause more crimes' unless you live in Canada or the UK where it is illegal to defend against criminals most of the time.
-3
Reply
Male 859
5cats I'll keep it simple for you.  Can you 100% guarantee that the level of force you will use is reasonable in your situation?  No, you cannot.  When you raise the stakes, you raise the risk of a bad outcome.  People with more power have a greater chance of causing harm.  

You feel threatened, so you shoot someone.  Do they die?  If you overdid your self-defense you are guilty of a crime.

Maybe you miss, and you shoot someone else accidentally.  Maybe you fumble the gun slightly and it goes off, injuring a bystander or your child.  Maybe you fire a warning shot and hit something you didn't intend to because you are focusing on the gent in front of you.  Maybe you fire intending to injure, but you hit a major blood vessel and they die?

At this point, no one has done you harm.  

Raising the stakes in a conflict situation increases the odds of a poor outcome.  

Dire conditions require dire actions.  As I stated below, if I am to choose between a life important to be and a life that is not, I will choose to end the life of someone who is not important to be and accept the consequences (whether legal or not) of my evil act. 

Someone stealing the tires of my car is not enough to fire shots at them.  No human's life is worth a couple of tires.
0
Reply
Male 40,764
punko So you agree with laws that prevent all forms of self-defence. Good for you.

Am I supposed to ask a robber with a knife:
'Say pal, do you have a gun too? I don't want to break the law by defending myself by SHOWING you my gun eh?' (yes that is a crime here)

The crooks HAD GUNS and were threatening everyone in the store, did you skip over that part? THEY set the stakes of conflict: not the employees.
The criminals decided that their lives were worth $40 they could steal, and the lives of the 6 employees less than that.

If the tire thieves turn around and pull out pistols? What about then? You are talking about things OTHER THAN what really happened: your fairy tales are meaningless.
0
Reply
Male 859
5cats I replied to your question, which had no connection to the video presented.  
0
Reply
Male 40,764
punko And I replied to your nonsense: I am required BY LAW to ASK a guy invading my home with a knife in his hands if he has a gun or not? Because if I even show him a gun, and he doesn't have one, I will face arrest. It will be me, in my own home defending my life, facing a longer stay in prison than he is.

Is that reasonable in any way?
0
Reply
Male 859
5cats And as I said earlier, if you are forced to commit an act, then you commit the act face the consequences after.  Yes, if you break the law you may face charges.   It all comes down to reasonable force in your jurisdiction.
0
Reply
Male 260
5cats 
 Maybe want to check out the UK's Crown Prosecution Service website occasionally.
Extract below.

The Law and Evidential Sufficiency

Self-defence is available as a defence to crimes committed by use of force. 

The basic principles of self-defence are set out in (Palmer v R, [1971] AC 814); approved in R v McInnes, 55 Cr App R 551:


"It is both good law and good sense that a man who is attacked may defend himself. It is both good law and good sense that he may do,
but only do, what is reasonably necessary."


The common law approach as expressed in Palmer v R is also relevant to the application of section 3 Criminal Law Act 1967: 


"A person may use such force as is reasonable in the circumstances in the prevention of crime, or in effecting or assisting in the lawful arrest of offenders or suspected offenders or of persons unlawfully at large." 


Section 3 applies to the prevention of crime and effecting, or assisting in, the lawful arrest of offenders and suspected offenders. There is an obvious overlap between self-defence and section 3. However, section 3 only applies to crime and not to civil matters. So, for instance, it cannot afford a defence in repelling trespassers by force, unless the trespassers are involved in some form of criminal conduct.

Reasonable Force

A person may use such force as is reasonable in the circumstances for the purposes of:

  • self-defence; or 
  • defence of another; or 
  • defence of property; or 
  • prevention of crime; or 
  • lawful arrest. 

In assessing the reasonableness of the force used, prosecutors should ask two questions:

  • was the use of force necessary in the circumstances, i.e. Was there a need for any force at all? and 
  • was the force used reasonable in the circumstances? 

1
Reply
Male 404
mikesex Having two guns pointed at you and not having caused this situation, lethal force is appropriate.
-1
Reply
Male 260
7eggert Wasn't commenting on a US situation; responding to an inaccurate depiction of UK law that self defence is illegal.

 "How does defending one's self 'cause more crimes' unless you live in Canada or the UK where it is illegal to defend against criminals most of the time."
0
Reply
Male 40,764
mikesex Read a little about rape in the UK last week: Simply owning anything stronger than a 'rape alarm' can get you arrested. Even pepper sprays (semi-legal to own) used in self-defence can get you charged, particularly if you hit his eyes (which is exactly where you're supposed to spray him).

Sure it's a 'case by case' basis but that's usually going to end with you making a plea and becoming a criminal.

In Canada? If you scare off a knife-armed burglar with your rifle? Guess who's facing charges and getting their guns confiscated...
-1
Reply
Male 404
5cats Any use of a weapon against a person will be investigated - and that's a good thing. Just  don't shoot a fleeing intruder into the back.
0
Reply
Male 40,764
7eggert I mean just showing a gun is illegal unless you have reason to believe they also have a gun. In Canada, idk about UK. 
Shooting is another level up from that.
0
Reply
Male 260
5cats Sure it's a 'case by case' basis but that's usually going to end with you making a plea and becoming a criminal.

And your evidence for this statement is...?
0
Reply
Male 40,764
mikesex Why else would such laws exist? If it says "spraying pepper spray in the eyes is a crime in any situation..." then why would they NOT prosecute?
Simply owning it in UK is sketchy, but its use is strictly limited to lower body :p legally speaking. Even in self defence.
0
Reply
Male 404
5cats It's always a crime to harm others even in case of self defense, but it's not against the law. Even cutting the hair is mayhem*, but it's allowed if you agree.

* translated by google
0
Reply
Male 260
5cats 'then why would they NOT prosecute?'

They could, they might. It's unlikely, but even then a British jury would have the final say. They'd acquit.

Having done jury duty myself I wonder what evidence you have that people in Britain have been successfully prosecuted for self defense.

The British concern about pepper sprays and the like is that, unless regulated, too many people would carry an offensive weapon and claim it was for 'self defense'.

If you really want to see how that might play out in real life just google knife crime in UK. As a result of that problem the police and community take a very dim view of knife carrying, even pen knives sometimes. (Although I've had my own issue in New York for having a Swiss Army Knife in my ruckie.)

We're also concerned about a recent spate of acid-spraying. Perfectly legal household  items can be put to nefarious use. That requires a response from the authorities supported by the public.

One  result is that fast food joints in UK rarely, if ever, get held up by gunmen. Over here we count that as a win.
0
Reply
Male 40,764
mikesex Who says we get a jury? That's an American Right, not for Canadians. Our system is corrupt from the top down :p

And those UK acid attacks? Every single suspect they've caught has been Muslim so far... just sayin. Long history of it over in Pakistan area, yes?
0
Reply
Male 260
5cats I have about as much knowledge about the Canadian system as you apparently do about the UK system. So I wasn't commenting on the Canadian system, merely pointing out that your comments on the British system were incorrect.

In the UK you get a jury. Acid attack would be too serious a crime for a magistrates court.

As for 'And those UK acid attacks? Every single suspect they've caught has been Muslim so far..' that's just nonsense. Most of the attacks have been gang- or crime-related and a number of the subsequent arrests and convictions have been of white non-muslim perpetrators. That is a matter of Public Record.

Though muslims in Yorkshire were recently the target of threats of acid attacks coming from local white yobs.

In fact Britain has a history of such criminality going back a couple of centuries, long before muslims began settling here. So long history of it here too, yes!
0
Reply
Male 40,764
mikesex Acid attacks were common for centuries in the UK? Well, news to me! I'll take your word on it :-) Cheers!

White thugs threatening to throw acid is not the same as gangs of Muslim youths actually throwing acid on complete (and white) strangers. Several orders of magnitude difference, I think. Still a crime of course.
0
Reply
Male 260
5cats It's being going on since the 18th century in Britain. We even hung someone for it in the 1830's! Also check out the British film "Brighton Rock" from 1947. Just white guys.

Today, it's not just threatening; the convictions  in the UK have been for actual assaults by non-muslims. And acid attacks have not just occurred in Pakistan and UK. There are significant crime levels recorded in Colombia, Uganda, Afghanistan, India, Nepal and Bangladesh as well. Two of those countries are majority Christian and two Hindu, majorities in excess of 80%.

Your point of view boils down to - if a white christian commits a crime it's because he's a criminal but if a brown muslim commits the same crime it's because he's a muslim. 

Generally, they're all just criminals.
0
Reply
Male 40,764
mikesex 87% of Britons are white... and less than 6% are Muslims (I looked it up).

So if there's 50 UK acid attacks, and 40 are by Muslims and 10 by whites... you have a massive over-representation there, correct? The order of 50:1? Those are strong enough odds to say it is 'a Muslim problem'...

Just saying: India has a 150 million Muslim population too... only 14.2% but that's a lot. 
IDK why you select those particular nations, but whatever.
0
Reply
Male 260
5cats 50 attacks in a population of over 60,000,000. Massive Over Representation? I'd be interested in the source of those figures.

The particular nations I selected are those which recorded significant amounts of acid attacks. You know, the subject of our discussion?


0
Reply
Male 40,764
mikesex No, there's been hundreds of attacks, I used 50 as an easy to identify number.
I looked it up a little bit: about 200 per year.

And how many acid attacks do you find acceptable? 50? 100? 200? Only those that 'are justified' perhaps? It is a horrible crime, like most violent crimes are.

I was unaware of acid attacks on strangers being a problem in South America, but there was a bloody civil war in Columbia for decades so anything is possible there.

And who carries out the acid attacks in those nations (other than Columbia)?  Muslims that's who. Just like in UK with their 6% minority doing 80% of the attacks (my estimation here, I bet it's pretty close). Blind extrapolation from demographics are meaningless.

Over representation, you need to look up what that means... 
If 6% do 80% of something? Good or bad they are OVER represented. They should (by pure chance) do 4-8% of that thing, not 80%. It is not chance, there is another factor(s) involved: Islam in this case. Or Jihad if you prefer.
0
Reply
Male 260
5cats http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/acid-attack-capital-britain-revealed-10008792

Just pick the bones out of this. Now I know every borough listed, I've lived in a few; good luck checking out the ethnic breakdown by population and crime rate. Really more of a social rather than muslim problem in my personal experience.

You and I can go round and round cherry picking our references. What is undeniable is that I live here and know for a fact that you are wrong about this particular issue whereas you (on a different continent) are on a continual search for any (generally spurious) reason for blaming muslims for pretty much everything- for reasons best known to yourself.

Although you could always quote examples from parts of the world you've spent more time in than me! (Not Uganda!!)

And I repeat:
Your point of view boils down to - if a white christian commits a crime it's because he's a criminal but if a brown muslim commits the same crime it's because he's a muslim.

As to why I listed the particular countries? Because those are the countries with reportedly significant numbers of the crime you highlighted. 


0
Reply
Male 40,764
mikesex Yes, and the criminals never move from area to area, they always stay in their respective boroughs, eh? :-/
It is un-possible for a gang of Muslim Youths to travel to another place which is filled with old white people (their desired targets) it simply cannot happen!

If a neighborhood is 95% old white people? Then 95% of acid attacks there MUST have been done by old white folks. Not against them by outsiders of course. There is no possible way an area with no Muslims in it could possibly have Muslims (with bus passes) committing crimes in it! None. Case closed! :->

I hope you see my point. The vast majority of those arrested for committing (not threatening!) acid attacks have been Muslim Youths against white people who were complete strangers. And since very few have been arrested, and the police won't report the ethnicity of suspects these days? Especially in London, until their names (and the names of youths are never revealed in UK, same as Canada right?) appear as suspects or convicted? We won't really know will we. BUT those whose names are revealed? Disproportionately Muslims. It's just a fact.

Name for me the last time White Christians went on a Jihad...

Jihad is a little bit more than 'a motive' for millions of Muslims around the world TODAY. Including in or against Canada, UK, USA and other places too. It is in fact their sworn duty, in the name of Allah, to Jihad (they believe, not all of them, blah blah blah...) against the infidels (us).
0
Reply
Male 260
5cats Except the majority weren't muslim Just check case by case.

The last time White Christians went on a jihad?  Well, you could try the Crusades. 11th century FYI...


0
Reply
Male 8,550
punko  Ending another human's life is always an evil act. 

All blanket statements are always bullshit. 

I don't believe your concept of 'evil' matches most other sane individuals'. 
0
Reply
Male 859
megrendel What crime is greater than ending another human's life?  How can ending another human's life be anything other than an evil act?

The only exception I can see is that for euthanasia.   To me, it is still an evil act, but one of reducing ultimate harm.  It is also not to be undertaken lightly and only in the direst of situations.
0
Reply
Male 404
punko If in a given situation you allow yourself to kill, you are allowed to be killed, because you aren't more entitled to live than your victims. Matthew 26:52.
-1
Reply
Male 859
7eggert All decisions and actions have consequences.  Killing to prevent a killing still has consequences.
0
Reply
Male 3,480
megrendel "all blanket statements are always bullshit"

hehe
0
Reply
Male 84
punko Ending a life that was trying to kill you is not an evil act.  It is ridding the world of evil.  A person doesn't want to kill the attacker but the attacker wanted to kill them.
0
Reply
Male 404
starzokc No, it doesn't rid an evil, but it's a lesser evil.
0
Reply
Male 859
starzokc  Ending a life that was trying to kill you is not an evil act. 

Yes, yes it is.  Nothing wrong in stopping someone from killing you, but ending a life is always an evil act.  There is a difference. 

You may ask "what if the only way to stop them is to kill them?"  Then you commit an evil act, and live.

And live with the consequences.

I said the act was always evil, I never said the act was always wrong.  And any action, whether right or wrong, has consequences.
0
Reply
Male 3,480
punko Keep in mind the term evil is not objective.  One man's evil (ie, Nazis) is a another mans regular social group.
1
Reply
Male 3,480
Let's just be happy they hit the right people.  It's a start.
2
Reply
Male 9,766
Decarlo Jackson? Can jews stop committing crimes for 5 minutes?
-3
Reply
Male 1,138
To those of you that are against this, please consider the following situation, as it quite possibly could have turned out like this instead:

Let's just say that your wife/significant other/kid/someone you love worked at that store.  Now, let's pretend that NONE of the people in the store, other than the robbers, had guns.  Robbers come in, ask for the money and for the DVR to be destroyed.  All the money in the store and the DVR is given to them and then they decide to shoot everyone anyway so that no one can call the cops and there are no witnesses.  Now, your loved one, who is a stand-up citizen, working a job and paying their bills, is dead and some criminal has money and is alive and well and never gets caught.
1
Reply
450
waldo863 The problem with these hypotheticals is that they're always portrayed as single standalone events. When you look at things at a demographic level, the frequency of these events matters. Of course you can frame any one single event as being truly horrific, and solvable with only your preferred course of action, but how many times this event happens is more important. Fact of the matter is that what you're describing is exceptionally rare, and designing law based on rare events is a bad thing.

Armed robbers also generally don't murder people. Take $600 and the cops won't care. Kill 6 people and they will.
0
Reply
Male 404
waldo863 Or the clerk pulls a gun, is shot and now your family is witness to a murder.
0
Reply
Male 4,242
waldo863 but it never happens like that 
1
Reply
Male 164
waldo863 

Or your wife and child are killed but rather than going through the typical stages of grief you find yourself in a place of profound gratitude and are launched into enlightenment like Siddhartha from the book by Herman Hesse.  You live the rest of your life in complete bliss and harmony, feeling nothing but compassion for all living things, traveling and helping others to achieve the same state of total liberation, while knowing that death is really just a transition and nothing to get worked up about at all.  
0
Reply
Male 3,480
waldo863 OR it could have turned out like this.

Your wife and kid are eating at the store.  Someone comes in with a gun to try to rob it.

The three employees whip out their guns and end up killing the robber and accidentally killing your wife and child.

Anyone can make up a scenario in which something happens good or bad, they are rarely helpful imo.
3
Reply
Male 1,018
waldo863 Consider this: no guns. That would fuckin suck. Makes my Christian heart ache to think everyone could have just walked away. Sadly, this happens almost daily. Lethal encounters are being avoided all over this country. But there's hope. You can help. Join the NRA and help end the threat of another day going by when one of those ******s gets to walk free.  

Do your part and arm everyone. God will sort out the rest.

AMEN
MAGA
2
Reply
Male 9,766
marsii I used to like the idea of no guns, but look at it this way:

If my cute 110 pound wife was working a night shift at a hospital downtown and then walking 2 blocks to the parking lot at 3am and a guy or two with a knife, or a bat, or bare handed decided he wanted to rob her, or rape her, or kidnap her, a gun is the only way she could defend herself.

Even if all the guns magically disappeared people would be at the physical mercy of those bigger and stronger. Outside of years of fight training a gun is the only thing that combats that.
1
Reply
Male 404
holygod It's the way to get killed. That is, unless she's a trained ninja from a comic book.
0
Reply
Male 1,018
holygod Yep. The only solution is to give every human the power to end another at a whim. It's just braindead to think otherwise. I literally can't think of another way to protect myself other than killing the other people around me. Good thing I love watching people die so much.
-3
Reply
Male 9,766
marsii I get that you are trolling or that you think you are being funny. However, even though we agree on pretty much everything, I find the tact to be a bit obnoxious. 

Joke a bit if you want but at some point flip the switch and discuss a serious topic like an adult.

Outside of a gun give me a way that a small woman could reasonably defend herself against two large men.
0
Reply
Male 1,018
holygod How durst you. These are my genuinely held beliefs. There are literally no other options to incapacitate other humans. They must be exterminated either by destroying the brain or severing the brain from the rest of the body.

WTF with the jew comment above btw?
0
Reply
Male 9,766
marsii Just was making a stupid joke. I'm not exactly why the alt right is so angry at the jews, but they don't ever seem to be the ones robbing taco bells.
-1
Reply
Male 1,018
holygod Ah. Sarcasm doesn't carry well in text.
0
Reply
Male 1,138
marsii Yeah, no guns would be great, but that's unrealistic.  Guns exist and criminals will get their hands on them and shoot innocent people.  That is a simple fact.  No amount of gun control laws are going to change the fact that criminals will continue to find ways to smuggle them in or steal them and sell them to other criminals.  Even if you had every gun control law in the world that you can imagine, these criminals would still have guns and they would still kill innocent people.  That is a fact.

I totally agree, it would be absolutely great if we could completely eliminate guns from the world.  I think you know as well as I do that's unrealistic.  The only thing we can do is take guns out of the hands of law abiding citizens though.  You can't make criminals not have guns.  They will find a way.  As long as those criminals have guns, I should be allowed to have one to defend myself and others from them.

Please please please get that through your head.  Criminals are criminals because, by definition, they do not follow the laws.  That is exactly what makes them a criminal.  So, how are laws that make gun ownership illegal supposed to keep guns out of the hands of people who do not follow the law?

Do you think that any laws passed will prevent people from making guns in Mexico and smuggling them in to the United States?  Criminals will always have guns.  That is a simple, undeniable fact.  You can not completely eliminate guns and as long as guns exist, criminals will get their hands on them.  Period.
0
Reply
Male 1,018
waldo863 " I totally agree, it would be absolutely great if we could completely eliminate guns from the world."

Ew, no, what the fuck? Did you not read? Someone almost made it home to their friends and family. Instead someone else got to watch their life slowly leave their body. God it must have been exhilarating. 
0
Reply
Female 4,429
marsii play stupid games, win stupid prizes
-2
Reply
Male 1,018
рулетка?
0
Reply
Male 1,871
I'm glad these guys killed one of the two, I'm sad that the other one lived to continue his life of crime.

Two of these guys have a problem because they were in possession of a handgun at age 19.  The only circumstance where it would be legal for them (at this age) to carry a handgun in a public area (in Ohio) is with specific hunting permits and with a parent or guardian nearby supervising.  There is no way they had a CCW.

Thus I am torn on this issue.  Here we have what is clearly a good shoot but it was done with illegally possessed guns.
-2
Reply
Female 4,429
insaneai Not sure about all states, but some will allow store owners (was this a franchise?) to give permission to carry because its considered private property.
-1
Reply
Male 1,018
insaneai I got the solution. We just shoot the clerks too. That'll teach em.
-3
Reply
Male 1,871
marsii Or you could just fuck off.  Or fuck On; whatever kind of fuck you like is quite acceptable to me so long as I do not have to provide it to you or assist in its application or aftermath.
-1
Reply
Male 1,018
insaneai You too much of a bitch to take this to it's logical conclusion? Criminals are criminals as they say. Shoot em.
1
Reply
Male 434
insaneai Then it's time to change the law. 19 is plenty old enough with proper training. And maybe with proper training they would have killed them both. I'm sure the robbing scumbags also had illegal firearms. 
0
Reply
Male 9,766
DerryNH WITH PROPER TRAINING

Too bad legally owning a gun or carrying a gun are not predicated on proper training. 
1
Reply
450
holygod Not to mention that even police, who do get proper training, often fuck up with their guns.
0
Reply
Male 1,871
DerryNH "Then it's time to change the law."  

Let me edit that a bit.  Then it's time to FIX the law.

The US Constitution guarantees the right to keep and bear arms and states that the right "shall not be infringed".  Putting age limitations, capacity and feature limitations etc. is an infringement but our government runs on popularity instead of actual rules.

19 is plenty old enough as determined by the US Marine Corps when they accepted my big brother at 17 (smarty pants graduated from one of the best high schools in the nation at 15).  
My concern is that these 19 year olds may have a legal concern just possessing the handguns at age 19.  I didn't say they shouldn't be allowed to have them but i also didn't make that distinction in my comment earlier either.
***For the gun fearing idiots and trolls: There should not be an age limit.  Go ahead and tell me about how 2 year olds don't need guns then fuck off because 2 year olds can't really come up with the money anyway. + other reasons. ***


-2
Reply
Male 9,766
insaneai Good point. Then you have to stay with that. If "shall not be infringed" is total and unwavering than a convicted murderer should be able to get out of jail and head straight to a gun store and stock up. Walmart should sell a shotgun to an 8 yr old. My 8 yr old could afford it. A criminally insane person with paranoid delusions that everyone is after them should have an M-16 at all times.
-1
Reply
Male 1,871
holygod Actually yes.  Either they have served their time and are no longer a threat to society and therefore should have all of their rights restored or they should remain in prison.

It's not that hard to figure this stuff out.
0
Reply
Male 550
I don't think it's a particularly good thing that someone died over this.
2
Reply
Male 40,764
mrteatime Those mean working persons broke into the home of those criminals and shot one dead, how tragic! There's no way a criminal should be harmed like that, what about his right to rob and threaten to kill people? 
& etc.
It's sad, but the only two who bear any blame here are the criminals, no one else.
-3
Reply
Male 8,550
mrteatime  I don't think it's a particularly good thing that someone died over this. 

It depends, of course, on WHO died.  Nor, in some cases, is it particularly 'bad'.

Did an innocent person die?  No. Optimal result.

The one who would do harm to others, and steal the fruits of their label, is the one who died.

Now, one could argue that 'No human life is worth a few hundred dollars.  Of course, HE thought his life was worth what was in the till.  HE set the value of his life.  Who are we to argue?
-1
Reply
Male 404
megrendel That's the Punisher's (Marvel) way of thinking. assign the label "guilty" and you may kill them. Assign "Jew" or "Socialist" or "Gypsy" ... gas shower.

Labels are absolutes. Only Sith talk in absolutes.
0
Reply
Male 550
megrendel Fine, if that's what you think and believe that's absolutely fine. I just happen to disagree.
0
Reply
Male 8,550
mrteatime I don't think it's a particularly good thing that ANYone died.

But, the PERPETRATOR set the value of his life (not very much), and considered others' lives of lesser value. So, I'm not particularly upset that he rept what he sewed. 
1
Reply
Male 434
mrteatime of course it is. The scum won't be pulling guns on anyone else.
-1
Reply
Male 9,766
mrteatime If you are a person who is willing to take a gun out into the world and threaten the lives of other people for no other reason than money I want you dead and out of society as fast as possible.

I'm pretty liberal but I have no tolerance for putting other people's lives at risk.


0
Reply
Male 550
holygod I don't think theft is a justifiable reason to kill someone.
0
Reply
Male 8,550
mrteatime  I don't think theft is a justifiable reason to kill someone. 

He wasn't shot over threatening theft.

He was shot for threatening other peoples' lives.  Someone chose not to be an obliging victim.
1
Reply
Male 1,138
mrteatime Yeah, because in every case where employees simply handed over money the thieves left without shooting anyone.  Ok.

See, that's the thing right there.  Even if they just gave these assholes the money, they could have all gotten shot anyway.  It happens.  If someone was robbing me at gunpoint, you better believe if and as soon as I had the chance I would be drawing on them and firing before they could fire on me.  If the opportunity did not present itself, I would just give them the money and hope they walked away without shooting.  I would not draw on them once they were leaving and no longer a threat.
0
Reply
Male 404
waldo863 Either you are a trained combatant or you are dead then. Or possibly both.
0
Reply
Male 434
mrteatime They pulled guns on innocent people and threatened go kill them. It wasn't about theft. How in the world can you possibly ignore that part of the incident? Did you forget that part, right after you watched the video? Why would you even attempt to redefine what happened? 
0
Reply
Male 550
DerryNH I'm not redefining anything nor am I ignoring the content of the video, I'm just venturing an opinion.

0
Reply
Male 9,766
mrteatime You don't think someone threatening to kill others is a justifiable reason to kill them? Then what is?
0
Reply
Male 550
holygod They are threatening people to get money, give them the money then they leave.   
0
Reply
Male 9,766
mrteatime They are also having them get down on the ground. Maybe they execute them so they can't identify them. Someone points a gun at you and you have to assume they will kill you. Plain and simple.
-1
Reply
Male 550
holygod I don't agree, but there we go, life's like that.
0
Reply
Male 1,018
mrteatime What's wrong with you? We don't carry guns to not shoot people. Someone could have gotten away with a taco. You really wanna live in that world?
-1
Reply
Male 1,138
marsii A taco?  Are you serious?  People don't rob Taco Bell for Tacos.  They rob Taco Bell for all the MONEY in the registers.  They were also armed and threatening to kill the employees.  So what were the employees supposed to do?  Just hand over then money and then possibly get shot and killed anyway?  That happens you know.
0
Reply
Male 40,764
waldo863 He is never serious, he is just a troll. Really, not kidding, pure and complete troll.
-2
Reply
Male 1,018
waldo863 It's all credit cards, dummy. Taco meat's where the real value is. 

Of course, that doesn't count the value of watching a human life snuffed out forever. The money is inconsequential as long as someone gets to draw blood.

MAGA
0
Reply
Male 1,138
marsii So, since the criminals are gonna get guns anyway, regardless of the laws against them(I mean, that's kinda what makes them criminals, they don't obey the law), in this case it is fairly likely that instead of the criminal getting shot, one or more innocent people could have been shot.  You would prefer to see only innocent people get shot?
-1
Reply
Male 1,018
waldo863  "You would prefer to see only innocent people get shot?"

Its difficult enough just to watch someone who the cops say deserve it. It's not like this shit's on pay-per-view y'know? I don't get to fucking pick my genre 'cause of liberal ass gun control laws. Soon tho..soon

MAGA
0
Reply
Male 550
marsii Aye, right enough you've made me see the error of my ways, I'm off to get a hand cannon and shoot me that varmint that stole my parking space last night!
-1
Reply
Male 1,138
mrteatime Yeah, because someone stealing a parking space is the same thing as someone holding a gun to your face and telling you to give them all the money in the register.  Ok.
-1
Reply
Male 1,018
waldo863 Don't cramp his style hippie. Criminals are criminals. You think they'll obey the law? Fucking END THEM where they stand. It just starts with parking spaces.
0
Reply
Male 434
mrteatime You're really unable to comprehend the difference between that and the video? You should stay cowering in your "safe space" then.
-1
Reply
Male 550
DerryNH I'm simply  saying killing someone because they are trying to rob you is not something I would celebrate. Also, I don't need to cower in my safe place because I don't live with a head full of paranoia and fear.
0
Reply
Male 1,018
mrteatime Good on ye
0
Reply
Male 1,018
Good thing they were both armed. Someone almost didn't die!
2
Reply
Male 9,766
Isn't it nice when the world gets just a little bit better?
0
Reply
Female 4,429
holygod I have a modicum of pity for the dead thug, in that he chose that lifestyle of "give me what's not mine or I'll kill you" and there my pity ends.  I'm guessing this place has been robbed before and the working people there got sick of it and took matters into their own hands, as it should be.  Especially if you work in a high-risk area/profession.  Fuck his hole-ridden corpse and I hope his buddy that ran gets charged with murder and rots in jail.
-1
Reply
Male 941
I'll bet that particular store doesn't get robbed again any time soon.
1
Reply
Female 4,429
3 armed workers and no 'wild west shootout'.
0
Reply
Male 20,917
Don't fuck with Taco Bell employees -- they have nothing to lose and will fuck your shit up.
5
Reply
Male 1,018
fancylad oh i see wat u did thur
1
Reply