2 robbers shot by customer, shakes community

IvanAstikov
reply to post by alienreality

 

Do you really believe he told them to stop before he had his gun drawn and pointing at them? Is that the job of members of the public, whatever their military experience? The mention of the robbers pulling out their own guns before being shot suggests that they weren't brandishing them before The Hero shouted "Stop!" at them, hence they were no threat to him if he'd just minded his own business.

Yes, I do believe that he told them to stop before he drew his weapon, that is what military trained people do, they meet the threat that is presented.

So, he should have just minded his own business? This attitude is what has allowed our culture to degrade to the point it is at. This should be the job of every member of the public willing to perform it and willing to take the training to perform it properly. These perps were a threat to every citizen walking that street at that time. He was the only one there with the civic conscienceness and personal fortitude to perform an unwelcome task and take accountability for his actions.

I have been the concerned citizen in cases of robbery twice, the first time I was able to detain the individual with minimal harm to anyone, just a few bruises on him and I. The second time I was stabbed once, and cut twice, but I still detained the individual until police and medical service arrived. If I am called upon to do it again, I will. IMO, it is the only right thing to do.

reply to post by Vortiki


That would just make robbers shoot them first, then rob them...

reply to post by IvanAstikov


Would one of you people who continue to state that the concerned citizen already had his weapon drawn please show me where in the OP's article that this is stated? I can't find this statement.

reply to post by NewAgeMan


In most states, the law clearly states that "any death that occurs during the act of a felony is murder". Garcia-Bialek is the only surviving perp of the act of armed robbery, a felony, the other 2 died during this felony, therefore 2 counts of 2nd degree murder against Garcia-Bialek, the 3rd conspirator in the aforementioned felony.

reply to post by leopardpimps


If the ex-military civilian had "tussled" with the two men, he, in all likelyhood would have been shot himself. Their weapon were drawn, the only safe response for the man was to defend himself in the safest way possible for him. This resulted in the death of the two young men, if they had not drawn their weapons, they would not have been shot.

aww! the poor kid ina ski mask holding a gun to someone! pls lets help him! it just isn't fair!

reply to post by opethPA


2 POS dirtbags try to rob a store, and get shot in the process.
Don't see an issue here.
The store owner should get a medal.

opethPA
I saw someone earlier try and insinuate that if they were stealing food that might have been ok..
That's pretty much BS.

So... If a starving, homeless Vietnam vet that's been living under a bridge because the invidiously apathetic and financial inequity corrupted American society has failed him nicks a loaf of bread bread from a street vendor, he should be shot dead??

iLemming

opethPA
I saw someone earlier try and insinuate that if they were stealing food that might have been ok..
That's pretty much BS.

So... If a starving, homeless Vietnam vet that's been living under a bridge because the invidiously apathetic and financial inequity corrupted American society has failed him nicks a loaf of bread bread from a street vendor, he should be shot dead??

Hey that's awesome..You can call me an American Idiot all you want and this is how much I care...

At least you didn't jump to a conclusion about what I said.. I never said shoot someone for stealing food I said stealing food is still a crime.

If a Vet goes into a store and robs that store owner of break, milk, eggs, toilet paper...he still stole multiple things and should be prosecuted.

Show me where to go to say Vets get forgotten by the people they work for and Ill be the first in line..Give me a protest to sign saying homeless people need options..Ill sign it..What I won't do is justify stealing because one group seems ok to you and another are just hood rats.

reply to post by opethPA


Yay! Justice is good for the streets. Citizens should make criminals have to go all in with their chips.

awesome find, it makes me happy when the unjust legal system can be avoided. I think this would be a better set up for a society... a bunch of people like that, and no cops. once u get paid to arrest law breakers, u arrest the wrong ones and too many of them. if you are not paid, just hold the authority, you would move with the will of the people truly, because they would take that power away if you did not.

I say good job it's just too more scumbags off the street

reply to post by IvanAstikov


Yes its is the job of the public to help each other when in need. If you were the one being robbed you wouldn't think so narrowly

I'm cool with that. This incident shows that "concealed-carry" works.

It's unfortunate that the crooks were shot. When confronted, they should have laid down their weapons, unless they intended to kill their next victim ... which was apparent by the fact that they drew on the concerned citizen.

Of course, I'm basing my opinion on the assumption that the crooks did not have a concealed-carry permit.

The person that did have one, used his firearm in the manner in which it was intended ... to deter crime, rather than commit it.

I hope the next person who plans on committing a crime thinks twice before drawing their weapon on someone who may or may not be carrying concealed.

reply to post by iLemming


no but nice try at a cop out. your scenario does not fit what actually happened now if the vet had armed him self and then decided to rob a place waving a gun around yeah he should be shot in the face ideally twice does not matter if hes a veteran or not what matters is (in your scenario) that he pulled a weapon threatened peoples lives and got shot for his trouble kind of like the two scum bags in the OP.....but nice attempt at spin....extra points for playing the nam card

if you decide to take whats not yours and use force to attempt to get it you have to take the risk that some one places more value on their property then your scummy life,dont wanna get shot in the chest or face? dont frigging rob people especially while waving guns around willy nilly and if the parents wanna complain id send them a bill for the ammo i had to use to pop their failed offspring with (ammo's not cheap now adays )then make them pay for the therapy id have to take after shooting their monsters

Restricted
I don't care who shot them just as long as they were shot.

Cleaning up the gene pool one bullet at a time.

Amen!!! Maybe if we were tough on crime...any violent crime, there wouldn't be as much of it. We have become pussified in fear of hurting or killing someone even if they deserve it. One bullet at a time works for me just fine. Don't break the law. If you CHOOSE to...you get arrested and go to jail. Don't commit a violent crime. If you CHOOSE to...you may be shot and/or die. Responsibility. TAKE SOME!

crzayfool
ITS THOU SHALL NOT COMMIT MURDER ACTUALLY!

Killing in self defense is fine. Thou shall not kill is a command to not MURDER someone. Soldiers are not held to account for their actions in defense of themselves and others either.

Does this still apply to all international soldiers EVEN if they are not in their homeland?

I understand that by you saying 'In defense of themselves and others' you could argue that international soldiers may be seen as liberating others' countries... but that's only in line with their own view - Not necessarily the people of that country they are "liberating".

It's a well known fact that American & British soldiers are killing Taliban & Al Qaeda (I was in fact a British soldier)... but the Taliban & Al Qaeda don't think they are wrong, so who is wrong for killing who? (not based on your personal views or the views of your nation).


I think it boils down to - there is no right or wrong, there is just 'stuff that happens' and that the verse in question is a load of tosh along with the book of fibs it came from.

That rule applies to ALL SOLDIERS the world over according to the Bibles teachings. A soldier goes where he i s told to and does so under his leaders and not of his own will. Most of those people killed are killed fairly under the geneva conventions due to them not being in uniforms. Its not a matter of them being right or wrong. There is a right and wrong though. Suicide bombings are wrong,opening fire on civilians is wrong unless in self defense. And you may not see the bible as a guide for good morals but alot of people do.

And I was also responding to the OP not you by the way.

TDawgRex

IvanAstikov
reply to post by alienreality

 

Do you really believe he told them to stop before he had his gun drawn and pointing at them? Is that the job of members of the public, whatever their military experience? The mention of the robbers pulling out their own guns before being shot suggests that they weren't brandishing them before The Hero shouted "Stop!" at them, hence they were no threat to him if he'd just minded his own business.

The guy just exercised "Gun Control".

Which means being able to hit what you are aiming at.

That's "Gun Control" that I stand 100% behind.

and yet people here claim the military won't fire on its own lol Give anyone a "story" like this and it's all justified and cheered

reply to post by mymymy


How is it military?

Just curious.

reply to post by TDawgRex


Just pointing out how the ATS community says if Marshall law, or anything like that would never work because Americans won't fire on Americans is pure BS. Look how everyone is cheering with absolutely NO proof of how anything went down in reality.