Store owner in critical condition after killing robbery suspects

danarhea said:

Some might ask what a local story is doing in the breaking news section. Well, it's here, and the reason is a valid one. The story here is that more people in the Houston area are beginning to apply a well-tested law enforcement technique that not only kills those who would rob them, but permanently removes the bastards from the streets, so they do not rob, or possibly kill, again. I am talking about, of course, the Second Amendment. Guns good. Scum dead. Taxpayer money not wasted. Scum had their trial, and their execution, at the hands of the man they were robbing. Poetic ****ing justice, and makes for a judicial system that is streamlined just the way I like it. :mrgreen:

Article is here.

Click to expand...

I fail to see how a gun-crazed nutjob killing three people and probably himself is in any way an endorsement of your 2nd Amendment, nor a righteous application of the rule of law.

All this serves to show is that four people are dead because both sides of this equation were greedy, and appointed themselves judge, jury and executioner.

Idiots, all four of them.



To edit the post, however, I will say that the store-owner was, if possible to be as such, more in the right than the robbers, by any stretch of the imagination, and I do wish him a speedy recovery.

Le Marteau said:

I fail to see how a gun-crazed nutjob killing three people and probably himself is in any way an endorsement of your 2nd Amendment, nor a righteous application of the rule of law.

All this serves to show is that four people are dead because both sides of this equation were greedy, and appointed themselves judge, jury and executioner.

Idiots, all four of them.

Click to expand...

All right, I'll play your game. What would you have done in his shoes?

theangryamerican said:

All right, I'll play your game. What would you have done in his shoes?

Click to expand...

Shot them.

I'm not all I want to be.

He did what I would have done, and he did what most of us think was the acceptable solution to the situation.

That doesn't make it right, nor legally justified.


Now, that raises another question -- to what extent should your life be governed by your laws and society's morals? I could say more, and answer it myself, but hopefully, if I don't do so, we'll have more of a discussion.

danarhea said:

Some might ask what a local story is doing in the breaking news section. Well, it's here, and the reason is a valid one. The story here is that more people in the Houston area are beginning to apply a well-tested law enforcement technique that not only kills those who would rob them, but permanently removes the bastards from the streets, so they do not rob, or possibly kill, again. I am talking about, of course, the Second Amendment. Guns good. Scum dead. Taxpayer money not wasted. Scum had their trial, and their execution, at the hands of the man they were robbing. Poetic ****ing justice, and makes for a judicial system that is streamlined just the way I like it. :mrgreen:

Article is here.

Click to expand...

At first I found myself agreeing with you, but I noticed that my feelings were based on righteousness... the feeling that we are right, and they are wrong.

There is no one in this world who is pure good, everyone makes mistakes; just like there is no one who is pure evil in this world, and if you look hard enough, you will always find some good action that even the worst offenders have done in their lives.

The three robbers... they didn't get to tell their story. We don't even know who these people were. Maybe one of them was robbing a store for the first time. They got killed over jewelery. Pieces of metal. I think, if anything, this story goes to show the madness of property ownership in our society... that THINGS are more important than LIVES. It's the very reason why people become criminals on the bottom rung of the ladder in the first place, because the system values things over the well being of people.

Maybe just one of those robbers could have had a second chance at life. Maybe the system would have worked, and corrected his behaviour. Now we will never know... nor will he, because he is dead. He didn't even get a trial. He just got a bullet. Over pieces of metal. The store owner probably even had insurance. The robbers could have taken everything and he could have just re-acquired it again. Instead he reacted in fear, anger, hate, and perhaps even greed over his property.

No one person should ever have the power to be judge, jury and executioner. If he survives his injuries, the store owner should be charged with triple homicide.

LIVES should always be more important than THINGS. You let the robbers take everything. Your life is more important than stuff, and so is theirs.

Le Marteau said:

Shot them.

I'm not all I want to be.

He did what I would have done, and he did what most of us think was the acceptable solution to the situation.

That doesn't make it right, nor legally justified.


Now, that raises another question -- to what extent should your life be governed by your laws and society's morals? I could say more, and answer it myself, but hopefully, if I don't do so, we'll have more of a discussion.

Click to expand...

The old addage says, "I'd rather be judged by twelve than carried by six."
In my eyes, defending me or my family in a life threatening situation will always put me in the right. Legally, I may go to prison, but at least I stood between me and my loved ones when danger came a-knocking.

theangryamerican said:

The old addage says, "I'd rather be judged by twelve than carried by six."
In my eyes, defending me or my family in a life threatening situation will always put me in the right. Legally, I may go to prison, but at least I stood between me and my loved ones when danger came a-knocking.

Click to expand...

Now, that, no-one can argue with -- or atleast, I certainly wont.

My issue comes with the fact that the men had not come to assassinate him, or harm him -- just to steal from him.

So this man has perhaps given his life to protect... His money. Which is the sad part.

I would stand by any attempt to protect the lives of innocents, or of the self, etc. It seems foolhardy to me, however, that a man with probably no military training, and a gung-ho attitude, took up a gun and perhaps got himself killed because people were stealing from his shop.

Orion said:

. They got killed over jewelery. Pieces of metal. I think, if anything, this story goes to show the madness of property ownership in our society... that THINGS are more important than LIVES. It's the very reason why people become criminals on the bottom rung of the ladder in the first place, because the system values things over the well being of people.

No one person should ever have the power to be judge, jury and executioner. If he survives his injuries, the store owner should be charged with triple homicide.

LIVES should always be more important than THINGS. You let the robbers take everything. Your life is more important than stuff, and so is theirs.

Click to expand...

It’s not about the jewelry. They got killed because they walked in to his store carrying guns. The man was defending his own life, plain and simple. Someone walks towards me brandishing a firearm in a threatening manner; I’m not waiting to see if they shoot first.

The life of the victim is always more important than the life of a BG.

theangryamerican said:

It’s not about the jewelry. They got killed because they walked in to his store carrying guns. The man was defending his own life, plain and simple. Someone walks towards me brandishing a firearm in a threatening manner; I’m not waiting to see if they shoot first.

The life of the victim is always more important than the life of a BG.

Click to expand...

The life of the victim, I agree, is to be supported and aided more than the life of the criminal, but both lives are worth more than any of the possessions either was carrying, as Orion said.

He hit the nail on the head. The problem here is that people are actively thinking "Yeah, whoo! That guy killed three people trying to rob him, way to go!" And they don't see the problem there, because a materialistic selfishness is quite prominent in a lot of peoples' minds today.

theangryamerican said:

It’s not about the jewelry. They got killed because they walked in to his store carrying guns. The man was defending his own life, plain and simple. Someone walks towards me brandishing a firearm in a threatening manner; I’m not waiting to see if they shoot first.

Click to expand...

The guns were to ensure obedience. Petty thieves never want to actually kill someone. That is criminology 101. It's the psychos and serial killers that do the killing in our society. Robbers just want stuff, because they don't have stuff; and now, they are dead because of STUFF.

The store owner could have just as easily died himself, and then we would be saying, "Oh those robbers, how awful." Or better yet, we wouldn't even be talking about it because it would be the "good guy" who died and there isn't a news story in that.

Any police officer will tell you that you should always cooperate with someone who has a gun, and that if they are simply robbing you, you should give them whatever they want.

theangryamerican said:

The life of the victim is always more important than the life of a BG.

Click to expand...

Then we have two different philosophies, which is why crime will never be stopped. :shrug:

Orion said:

The guns were to ensure obedience. Petty thieves never want to actually kill someone. That is criminology 101. It's the psychos and serial killers that do the killing in our society. Robbers just want stuff, because they don't have stuff; and now, they are dead because of STUFF.

Click to expand...

They had no problem shooting back at the store owner. I'd agree with you if the store owner drew and they booked out, but it sounds instead like they tried to kill him. Anyone trained in self-defense knows you don't shoot someone who is already running the opposite direction and contrary to the media belief, gun carriers are NOT looking for excuses to kill someone. We prepare for the day we have to use our weapons and we pray it never comes...

Then we have two different philosophies, which is why crime will never be stopped. :shrug:

Click to expand...

On the contrary, armed citizens are an excellent deterrent to crime.

theangryamerican said:

They had no problem shooting back at the store owner.

Click to expand...

The article doesn't say who fired the first shot because the footage is still being reviewed, but my guess is that it was the store owner. That is usually how it works. The suspects just want the loot, they don't want to kill anybody - that is how it happens with robberies.

Also, you don't seem to notice your own hypocrisy when you say the store owner was just defending himself, yet the suspects had it coming when the store owner shot at them? Hypocrisy at its finest.

theangryamerican said:

I'd agree with you if the store owner drew and they booked out, but it sounds instead like they tried to kill him.

Click to expand...

The article does not confirm who fired the first shot so you can't really assume that.

theangryamerican said:

Anyone trained in self-defense knows you don't shoot someone who is already running the opposite direction and contrary to the media belief, gun carriers are NOT looking for excuses to kill someone. We prepare for the day we have to use our weapons and we pray it never comes...

Click to expand...

I have no beef with the second amendment and I support the right to carry arms. My issue here is a matter of law and order, and people having the "right" to kill others, especially over property. Property is not equal in value to lives, and any store owner should have insurance. If the store owner killed them over property, then he deserves to rot in jail forever; if he was truly defending himself, then I can sort of sympathize with that, but the surveillance tapes have to confirm that he did not fire the first shot. If he did, then it's not self-defense, and he should rot.

theangryamerican said:

On the contrary, armed citizens are an excellent deterrent to crime.

Click to expand...

Again, my issue here is not guns, but the application of them. You should always have a right to bear arms, but you have no right to USE them as you please.

Orion said:

The article doesn't say who fired the first shot because the footage is still being reviewed, but my guess is that it was the store owner. That is usually how it works. The suspects just want the loot, they don't want to kill anybody - that is how it happens with robberies.

Click to expand...

If they didn’t want to kill anyone, the way out of the store is always faster than staying and exchanging shots.

Also, you don't seem to notice your own hypocrisy when you say the store owner was just defending himself, yet the suspects had it coming when the store owner shot at them? Hypocrisy at its finest.

Click to expand...

No hypocrisy whatsoever. The store owner was defending himself against armed assailants. No one in their right mind waits to see if someone with a gun is going to shoot them first. Surprise is a huge tactical advantage. Moreover, why should I sympathize with robbers who knowingly broke the law and were held to account when the store owner met force with force. Color me broken hearted that these BGs won’t be victimizing or shooting anyone else. Btw, I never said they "had it coming." :2razz

The article does not confirm who fired the first shot so you can't really assume that.

Click to expand...

Immaterial. Again, will you wait to be shot before you fight back when someone pulls a gun on you?

I have no beef with the second amendment and I support the right to carry arms. My issue here is a matter of law and order, and people having the "right" to kill others, especially over property. Property is not equal in value to lives, and any store owner should have insurance. If the store owner killed them over property, then he deserves to rot in jail forever; if he was truly defending himself, then I can sort of sympathize with that, but the surveillance tapes have to confirm that he did not fire the first shot. If he did, then it's not self-defense, and he should rot.

Click to expand...

What guarantee did the owner have that he would live if he gave up his property? Also, it can still be ruled self-defense if he fired first. I suggest you review your laws.

Again, my issue here is not guns, but the application of them. You should always have a right to bear arms, but you have no right to USE them as you please.

Click to expand...

No one is saying that we want to shoot anyone we please. I’m not advocating a Wild West scenario. AGAIN, I’m simply stating that when someone approaches you in a threatening manner with a gun, you DON’T wait. That hesitation can be the difference between you living and dying. Self-defense is NOT using my gun as I please.

Le Marteau said:

Now, that, no-one can argue with -- or atleast, I certainly wont.

My issue comes with the fact that the men had not come to assassinate him, or harm him -- just to steal from him.

So this man has perhaps given his life to protect... His money. Which is the sad part.

I would stand by any attempt to protect the lives of innocents, or of the self, etc. It seems foolhardy to me, however, that a man with probably no military training, and a gung-ho attitude, took up a gun and perhaps got himself killed because people were stealing from his shop.

Click to expand...

You don't know much about Houston, Texas. Robbers here frequently kill those they rob, so as not to leave any witnesses. Your best protection in Texas is not the police, but a gun, and the willingness to shoot those who might harm you graveyard dead.

danarhea said:

You don't know much about Houston, Texas. Robbers here frequently kill those they rob, so as not to leave any witnesses. Your best protection in Texas is not the police, but a gun, and the willingness to shoot those who might harm you graveyard dead.

Click to expand...

I'll have to take your word for how uncivilised Texas is. XD


Now, if what you say is true, and the entirety of Texas is like living in the East End of London, then I would still argue that there are probably better ways to solve such a situation than killing the three robbers, but it does put the robbery into a different light. Mind you, not too different of a light -- it doesn't change the fact that the entire debacle was about portable property, but when there's an increased element of physical danger, there's an increased necessity for examining the exact chronology of events, and other possible options the shop owner had.

Le Marteau said:

Shot them.

I'm not all I want to be.

He did what I would have done, and he did what most of us think was the acceptable solution to the situation.

That doesn't make it right, nor legally justified.


Now, that raises another question -- to what extent should your life be governed by your laws and society's morals? I could say more, and answer it myself, but hopefully, if I don't do so, we'll have more of a discussion.

Click to expand...

Actually, in America, it is legal to shoot armed robbers in almost every state, under almost all circumstances.

Goshin said:

Actually, in America, it is legal to shoot armed robbers in almost every state, under almost all circumstances.

Click to expand...

Hmm. I'll hold off on talking too much about what that says about the States, and instead say, I still think the most moral outcome is a situation in which causes the least harm to humans -- in this case, a simple robbery. So, while it is perhaps unfortunately legal to kill criminals in the States, I think that in most cases, it is still immoral.

Orion said:

The guns were to ensure obedience. Petty thieves never want to actually kill someone. That is criminology 101. :

Click to expand...

Horse ****.


Twenty years ago my best friend in the world was robbed at his business at gunpoint. He cooperated fully. His reward was to be kidnapped, taken to a backroad, and shot in the head. He was the only child of a widow woman.

When people come at you armed, you do not know what their intentions are, but you do know this: they have decided that "get money!" is more important than the inherent risk of armed robbery to the lives of the innocent.

All armed robbers should be shot dead. I don't give a flying **** if this was their first time or their tenth. I don't care if they're 18 and had a bad home life. They don't care about innocent life, so I don't care about them.

Le Marteau said:

Hmm. I'll hold off on talking too much about what that says about the States, and instead say, I still think the most moral outcome is a situation in which causes the least harm to humans -- in this case, a simple robbery. So, while it is perhaps unfortunately legal to kill criminals in the States, I think that in most cases, it is still immoral.

Click to expand...

I happen to disagree. I think that risking your own life to kill armed robbers is a higher morality than allowing them to succeed in their crime and go on to victimize others.

Goshin said:

All armed robbers should be shot dead. I don't give a flying **** if this was their first time or their tenth. I don't care if they're 18 and had a bad home life. They don't care about innocent life, so I don't care about them.

Click to expand...

Exactly. To quote the ever eloquent Captain Reynolds: "Someone ever tries to kill you, you try to kill 'em right back!"

Goshin said:

I happen to disagree. I think that risking your own life to kill armed robbers is a higher morality than allowing them to succeed in their crime and go on to victimize others.

Click to expand...

Mind that in some situations, I do agree, and that from what I've heard of the particular area in which the crime was committed, this may be approaching one of those situations where that action was justified, or atleast permissible.

However, I do think that, if intent on finding a higher morality in the pursuit of bringing justice to criminals (which is absolutely a noble pursuit), one should join the police force, or some branch of the justice department.

Vigilante justice is sometimes justified, and often times not.

Le Marteau said:

The life of the victim, I agree, is to be supported and aided more than the life of the criminal, but both lives are worth more than any of the possessions either was carrying, as Orion said.

Click to expand...

I disagree. When someone comes brandishing weapon tying to rob someone that dirt on the ground is worth more than that criminal's life. That urine stained floor and **** stained toilet in the bathroom is worth more than that criminal's life.

He hit the nail on the head. The problem here is that people are actively thinking "Yeah, whoo! That guy killed three people trying to rob him, way to go!" And they don't see the problem there, because a materialistic selfishness is quite prominent in a lot of peoples' minds today.

Click to expand...

The guy killed three scumbags trying to rob and possibly kill him. There is no problem.

Le Marteau said:

Mind that in some situations, I do agree, and that from what I've heard of the particular area in which the crime was committed, this may be approaching one of those situations where that action was justified, or atleast permissible.

However, I do think that, if intent on finding a higher morality in the pursuit of bringing justice to criminals (which is absolutely a noble pursuit), one should join the police force, or some branch of the justice department.

Vigilante justice is sometimes justified, and often times not.

Click to expand...

Again, we have a very different viewpoint.

Self-defense is not vigilante justice.

"Vigilante justice" is when you go out looking for trouble.

Self-defense is when trouble finds you and you protect yourself and your own.

I oppose Vigilantism, in most cases. I support self-defense. They are not the same.

Le Marteau said:

Mind that in some situations, I do agree, and that from what I've heard of the particular area in which the crime was committed, this may be approaching one of those situations where that action was justified, or atleast permissible.

However, I do think that, if intent on finding a higher morality in the pursuit of bringing justice to criminals (which is absolutely a noble pursuit), one should join the police force, or some branch of the justice department.

Vigilante justice is sometimes justified, and often times not.

Click to expand...

And, in this case, highly desirable. This was justified, both legally and morally. Or should he have just sat there, after his wife had been tied up, and take a chance that the robbers would not kill him and his wife both? Like our forefathers said, we are entitled to life, liberty, and property. If some POS attempts to take any of the three, then the Second Amendment comes in quite handy.

Le Marteau said:

Hmm. I'll hold off on talking too much about what that says about the States,

Click to expand...

Unlike the UK the US pretty much does not have any sympathy for criminals trying to rob and possibly rape and or kill innocent people.

and instead say, I still think the most moral outcome is a situation in which causes the least harm to humans -- in this case, a simple robbery.

Click to expand...

If you are capable then the most moral thing to do is to stop the criminal regardless if it cost the criminal his life.

So, while it is perhaps unfortunately legal to kill criminals in the States, I think that in most cases, it is still immoral.

Click to expand...

There is absolutely nothing immoral about killing a scumbag who is threatening you,your family, someone else or your property or lively hood.

Le Marteau said:

However, I do think that, if intent on finding a higher morality in the pursuit of bringing justice to criminals (which is absolutely a noble pursuit), one should join the police force, or some branch of the justice department.

.

Click to expand...

Been there, done that, but in America we do not consider the police to be the sole custodians of the public safety. All American citizens are responsible for helping protect themselves and their community. American citizens have citizen arrest powers, including the right to use force in carrying out a citizen's arrest under certain circumstances. Americans have the Constitutional right to be armed, and the established tradition of defending self and community from human predators.

Makes me wanna yell OO-FRICKIN'-RAH about right here, how 'bout you guys... :mrgreen: