ChatterBank10 mins ago
Justice, Texas Style
31 Answers
Good decision by the grand jury, and the better news is the punk wont be doing it again. Maybe if the liberal justice system they seem to have in the US a well hadnt let him out so early he would be living now?
Answers
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by youngmafbog. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
If you believe in vigilante justice, then this will be catnip for you - as any posts agreeing will testify.
If, like me, you find the notion of a citizen being able to shoot someone dead who is not directly threatening them, and be applauded for it, as a large step down a slippery slope, then you might not be quite so gleeful about this notion of 'justice'.
AH, did you actually bother to read it and view the video?
The perp had a gun in his hand and was waving it at another punter in the corner who clearly has his hands up. Do you think he was doing that for fun?
No, the other diner was in potential danger so the guy shot the perp.
Maybe you are so wonderful you could tackle a man with a gun and bring him down, for us mere mortals doing what this man is the preferable solution.
Generally I agree that vigilantism is wrong and leads society into dangerous areas but although the word is used this is not a vigilante in the normal sense, he's not going out and sumarility executing what he considers legitimate targets. The robber was flashing what appeared to be a gun, the guy was "protecting" the others in the restuarant.
YMB - //
AH, did you actually bother to read it and view the video? //
Yes, and yes - I make it my business to read and see what I am going to talk about first, it saves me looking foolish further down the line.
// The perp had a gun in his hand and was waving it at another punter in the corner who clearly has his hands up. Do you think he was doing that for fun? //
'Perp'? I think you have been watching too many American crime dramas!
But no, the criminal was clearly intimidating the customers, that is obvious from the video.
// No, the other diner was in potential danger so the guy shot the perp. //
I did not say that - please re-read my post.
// Maybe you are so wonderful you could tackle a man with a gun and bring him down, for us mere mortals doing what this man is the preferable solution. //
I am not so 'wonderful', no, and I'm not sure you speak for all 'mere mortals', just those who believe in summary execution.
I would suggest that the court will have checked that the shooter was entitled to carry a concealed weapon, and from the fact that he was accurately able to shoot the criminal in the head from that distance, suggests that he was an experienced marksman, and could have easily fired a warning shot, or shot the criminal in the leg, thus not killing him.
But killing him was clearly the intention, since the shooter felt it necessary to shoot a further eight bullets into the criminal's corpse, even though he was dead before he hit the floor.
You are similarly pumped with self-righteousness at what you see as 'justice', I take a different view, but don;t feel the need to ridicule you because your view is different from mine.
//I did not say that - please re-read my post.//
You wrote "If, like me, you find the notion of a citizen being able to shoot someone dead who is not directly threatening them" so I have pointed out that the threat was to another punter. So yes you did say it.
//I would suggest that the court will have checked that the shooter was entitled to carry a concealed weapon//
Well yes, although it doesnt have to be concealed in Texas.
//But killing him was clearly the intention, since the shooter felt it necessary to shoot a further eight bullets into the criminal's corpse, even though he was dead before he hit the floor.//
Glad you are able to tell someone is dead from a distance, perhaps you could tell paramedics and doctors how you do it to save them some time,
When you are in that situation you pump the whole clip in, otherwise the perp(yes we are talking about the USA here) could turn and shoot you or others.
You santimoniou liberal views are rather odd and clealry show absolutley no knowledge whatoever.
//You santimoniou liberal views are rather odd and clealry show absolutley no knowledge whatoever. //
As someone who was trained to use lethal force I cannot disagree with your assessment.
If you make a split second decision to shoot someone having weighed up the rules of engagement it is nota cowboy scenario where you shoot guns out of hands or wound in the knee. People who are authorised to shoot a person are trained to put them down for good.Perpetrators have survived wounds in the head and still remain a threat. We were taught to Mozambique. Two rounds in the body mass (chest) and one in the head. Consideration had to be given of bullet travel and over penetration for a head shot.An assasin who attempted to kill the Israeli ambassdor to the UK was shot in the head by the Special Branch protection officer who proceeded to empty his weapon of the remaining 4 rounds of .38 ammunition into the body mass of the would-be assasin. The next day after hospital treatment at St Mary's Paddington hospital the would-be assasin was in Paddington Green Police Station being charged for attempted murder. The Israeli ambassadeur was paralysed for life and we were taught to use as much ammunition as needed to eliminate a potential threat.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
https:/
YMB - I am not willing to engage with you if you persist with your pointless offensive self-righteous sarcasm.
If you want to discuss the issues raised like an adult, please repost.
If you want to be a pub bore regailing the thread audience with how 'tough and no nonsense' you are, then go and shout into a bucket.
// But all of your post, informative though it is, does not address my long-held serious aversion to citizens carrying and using firearms to take the law into their own hands. ///
Sorry. I wasn't aware I was obliged to address your long-held aversion for citizens carrying guns.
This was the USA where it is written in their constitution. It is unlikely to change Sadly they do not vet their gun owners.
Because there are crazies who possess and use them for crime it is a good job that some decent law-abiding citizens do lawfully carry defensive weapons to protect themselves and others. There aren't cops on every corner despite what you see in the movies.
The law allows citizens to protect themselves and others. They are not taking the law into their own hands, particularly in this case,and as .the diner said it will remain with him forever that he had shot someone dead.I am sure he just expected to happily eat his taco with a pal until a lawless idiot intimidates and attempts to rob all the customers.The diner wasn't messing with guns. The robber was and paid for it.
nt m
retrocop - // Sorry. I wasn't aware I was obliged to address your long-held aversion for citizens carrying guns. //
Of course you are not, stop looking for a fight.
// Because there are crazies who possess and use them for crime it is a good job that some decent law-abiding citizens do lawfully carry defensive weapons to protect themselves and others. There aren't cops on every corner despite what you see in the movies. //
That sounds remarkably like the indefensible claptrap the NRA spouts - 'The answer to a bad man with a gun is a good man with a gun'.
The reality is, the answer is no-one with guns, but as we agreee, that ship has long since sailed, never to return.
The problem is, how long before a 'good man with a gun' becomes a bad man with a gun, because of the pervasive power that carrying a gun has?
In this instance, things were concluded without innocent loss of life, but things could have been very different.
If someone else with a gun had been shocked into shooting as well, the two could have shot at each other, and multiple deaths could have occured.
This scenario ended with no innocent deaths, but in my view, that does not make it a template to hold up and glorify the carrying of guns by citizens. Not by a very long way.
"But all of your post, informative though it is, does not address my long-held serious aversion to citizens carrying and using firearms to take the law into their own hands. "
texas law in particular does if i am not mistaken permit people to use privately owned firearms in public to protect other people (or "property" oddly which i find rather strange). i do not particularly like this law and share your reservations about it but this person was acting within it.
//In this instance, things were concluded without innocent loss of life, but things could have been very different //
Lots of could haves and maybes in your post.
The perpetrator had a record of violence including murder and aggravated armed robbery (again.) The innocent shooter was not aware of this violent low life's record but could have had a lucky escape . It would appear the state of Texas judicial system of reform does not work. The perpetrator will never murder someone by shooting them in the back or commit more aggravated armed robbery again and the decent people of that town can enjoy their meals without fear. Result. For the record. I was not looking for a fight.
There are lots of could-haves and maybes in my post, because there are lots in situation we are discussing.
There are in all of them.
But remember, The Right To Bear Arms that saved the day here, is the same Right that will arm the next high school massacre gunman, so let's not get too excited shall we?
A 'win' today will not prevent a 'lose' tomorrow, or the days after.
Latest Posts
Starmer & Lammy A Marriage Made In...
News19 mins ago
News20 mins ago
Quizzes & Puzzles25 mins ago
ChatterBank32 mins ago
Quizzes & Puzzles47 mins ago