Chicago concealed carry gun owner kills robber...

[jc456]

What you propose is nothing Law and Order, is vigilantism...

No, it's not. I am not advocating people hunt these scumbags down and kill them. What I am saying is that when these scumbags commit a crime, and are killed in the commission of that crime, I don't care. They played the odds and they lost.

it was their choice to go in with a gun and the choice had consequences PERIOD!!!!!

It was the choice of the shooter to shoot, when he more than likely didn't need to.

I don't care, he will get the consequence for his choice right? What is the difference? Why are you hell bent to save a villian, I don't get it. Are you one? Are you wanting to be one and are scared to come out of the closet? just curious how a douchebag like you functions in society.

Money is never worth killing for.

you should have been around to preach to al capone. He'd have loved that one.

 

[PaintMyHouse]

Love these stories where a thug bastard gets put down by a carrier!

I'm sure that you do. You are all for vigilante "justice", most gun-nuts are. They can't wait to play John Wayne...

You know, Paint, you really are a despicable piece of shit contrarian. The thug was armed. Not only is he guilty of armed robbery but also aggravated assault. If someone dropped dead of a heart attack during the robbery then the thug would be guilty of felony murder.

**** that scum ****. If you have a weapon confronting someone for whatever reason then you are putting a reasonable person in apprehension of immediate death or severe bodily injury, in which case deadly force is both legal and appropriate.,

Not much good to not take a gun to a robbery like that eh? And armed robbery is still not a capital offense here, and no one was assaulted.

sure they were assaulted, sorry you lose.

No one was assaulted...

 

[jc456]

I disagree. Had he locked them both in a room, taken the money and gone, no one would have been harmed. To really be in the clear here, you have to wait until the guy starts shooting, at a person.

Well, you go ahead and live by that sword. Let us know if you don't die by it as well.

People who "live" by that rule tend to wind up in the obits sooner than later.

It's hard to even estimate how many people have lived through one or even several armed robberies. Do as they say and most times no one gets hurt. That would have likely been true in this case as well but you little gun nuts just love to think of yourselves as John Shoot'em Up Wayne. Judge, jury, and executioner.

most times no one gets hurt

Yeah...that's the tricky part isn't it...you never know when "most times" isn't "this time," and when he plans on murdering everyone in the store....

I think it's pretty clear, it's hard to kill someone with a paintball gun...

but not impossible right?

 

[PaintMyHouse]

No, it's not. I am not advocating people hunt these scumbags down and kill them. What I am saying is that when these scumbags commit a crime, and are killed in the commission of that crime, I don't care. They played the odds and they lost.

it was their choice to go in with a gun and the choice had consequences PERIOD!!!!!

It was the choice of the shooter to shoot, when he more than likely didn't need to.

I don't care, he will get the consequence for his choice right? What is the difference? Why are you hell bent to save a villian, I don't get it. Are you one? Are you wanting to be one and are scared to come out of the closet? just curious how a douchebag like you functions in society.

Money is never worth killing for.

Then why are there armed guards at all the banks?

To protect the people, not the money. The money they hand over, it's policy...

 

[jc456]

Love these stories where a thug bastard gets put down by a carrier!

I'm sure that you do. You are all for vigilante "justice", most gun-nuts are. They can't wait to play John Wayne...

You know, Paint, you really are a despicable piece of shit contrarian. The thug was armed. Not only is he guilty of armed robbery but also aggravated assault. If someone dropped dead of a heart attack during the robbery then the thug would be guilty of felony murder.

**** that scum ****. If you have a weapon confronting someone for whatever reason then you are putting a reasonable person in apprehension of immediate death or severe bodily injury, in which case deadly force is both legal and appropriate.,

Not much good to not take a gun to a robbery like that eh? And armed robbery is still not a capital offense here, and no one was assaulted.

sure they were assaulted, sorry you lose.

No one was assaulted...

sure they were, they were held at gunpoint. not free to do what they wanted to do, assaulted pretty boy.

 

[PaintMyHouse]

Well, you go ahead and live by that sword. Let us know if you don't die by it as well.

People who "live" by that rule tend to wind up in the obits sooner than later.

It's hard to even estimate how many people have lived through one or even several armed robberies. Do as they say and most times no one gets hurt. That would have likely been true in this case as well but you little gun nuts just love to think of yourselves as John Shoot'em Up Wayne. Judge, jury, and executioner.

most times no one gets hurt

Yeah...that's the tricky part isn't it...you never know when "most times" isn't "this time," and when he plans on murdering everyone in the store....

I think it's pretty clear, it's hard to kill someone with a paintball gun...

but not impossible right?

No, just very, very close to impossible.

 

[PaintMyHouse]

I'm sure that you do. You are all for vigilante "justice", most gun-nuts are. They can't wait to play John Wayne...

You know, Paint, you really are a despicable piece of shit contrarian. The thug was armed. Not only is he guilty of armed robbery but also aggravated assault. If someone dropped dead of a heart attack during the robbery then the thug would be guilty of felony murder.

**** that scum ****. If you have a weapon confronting someone for whatever reason then you are putting a reasonable person in apprehension of immediate death or severe bodily injury, in which case deadly force is both legal and appropriate.,

Not much good to not take a gun to a robbery like that eh? And armed robbery is still not a capital offense here, and no one was assaulted.

sure they were assaulted, sorry you lose.

No one was assaulted...

sure they were, they were held at gunpoint. not free to do what they wanted to do, assaulted pretty boy.

They were held only as long as it took him to get the money he wanted. People like that are taught to just do what he says and hand it over. No one usually gets hurt that way.

 

[PaintMyHouse]

No, it's not. I am not advocating people hunt these scumbags down and kill them. What I am saying is that when these scumbags commit a crime, and are killed in the commission of that crime, I don't care. They played the odds and they lost.

it was their choice to go in with a gun and the choice had consequences PERIOD!!!!!

It was the choice of the shooter to shoot, when he more than likely didn't need to.

I don't care, he will get the consequence for his choice right? What is the difference? Why are you hell bent to save a villian, I don't get it. Are you one? Are you wanting to be one and are scared to come out of the closet? just curious how a douchebag like you functions in society.

Money is never worth killing for.

you should have been around to preach to al capone. He'd have loved that one.

A good example.

 

[HereWeGoAgain]

Sure you can. Break into my house or try and carjack me and I'll prove it.

Only when they are a threat to you in most cases, not just because you see a crime in progress.

If you see someone elses life in danger you can intercede on their behalf with deadly force.

You can, of course, but that doesn't mean you won't face criminal charges, or in this case, a civil lawsuit.

Tell that to Joe Horn.

Never heard of him. Should I care?

Oh you'd hate the guy.
I'd love to have him as a neighbor.

 

[jc456]

Anyone that commits armed robbery deserves to get shot. It should be a capital offense.

I'm afraid the laws of this nation completely disagree. Money is not worth a human life.

You completely miss the point, moron. The shooting was in self defense. The victims had no way of knowing whether he would have killed one or more of them.

No, it wasn't in self-defense, hence the problem. The guy wanted money, not to kill anyone.

how do you know that? ah you don't, but nice try, your philosophy falls on its face bubba.

 

[Lonestar_logic]

it was their choice to go in with a gun and the choice had consequences PERIOD!!!!!

It was the choice of the shooter to shoot, when he more than likely didn't need to.

I don't care, he will get the consequence for his choice right? What is the difference? Why are you hell bent to save a villian, I don't get it. Are you one? Are you wanting to be one and are scared to come out of the closet? just curious how a douchebag like you functions in society.

Money is never worth killing for.

Then why are there armed guards at all the banks?

To protect the people, not the money. The money they hand over, it's policy...

So armored truck drivers carry guns to protect???

You lost this argument pages ago. Stop while you still have an ounce of integrity left.

 

[jc456]

Ordering the clerk into the back room at gun point changes everything.

I disagree. Had he locked them both in a room, taken the money and gone, no one would have been harmed. To really be in the clear here, you have to wait until the guy starts shooting, at a person.

Dude, If the armed street thug has already killed the clerk, then why bother getting involved. The time to act was before they entered the back room.

And for you to approach an armed street thug in an enclosed room with only one way in amounts to a suicidal act on your part.

He didn't kill anyone, more than likely wouldn't have, and if you don't want to be charged with murder you'd better wait until he starts shooting.

Some people aren't willing to bet their own lives, or the lives of others, on what you think an armed robber may or may not do. There have been plenty of armed robberies where people were executed for no logical reason.

That is correct but it is still nearly always true that if you give them what they want they go away, peacefully. That is what the do not resist or follow them out policies of major chains are based on. Sometimes you have to play the odds.

maybe they didn't want to give him their hard earned cash. just maybe?

 

[jc456]

Good riddance, scumbag.

Frontier "justice". No respect for law and order.

...says the armed robber's advocate.

In our Law and Order system criminals get that. That is why the shooter might still end up behind bars. We'll see...

we will right? so you going on in here is nothing but useless drivel

 

[Ame®icano]

Bullshit. The sub-human was a serial armed robber.

It doesn't matter. If he didn't shoot anyone then he wasn't a threat.

And he was wearing a t-shirt "I'm not threat to anyone".

 

[jc456]

You completely miss the point, moron. The shooting was in self defense. The victims had no way of knowing whether he would have killed one or more of them.

No, it wasn't in self-defense, hence the problem. The guy wanted money, not to kill anyone.

Then what was the gun for?

As a threat. Why would they just hand over cash, especially in a place like that, just because they asked, although that undoubtedly is their policy.

Yes it was a threat, a threat to everyone's lives there. So someone rightfully decided he was not going to leave his fate in the hands of some armed thug robber.

Strange that you would defend an armed robber to this degree.

I'm defending Law and Order. Just because someone is committing a crime doesn't mean you can just shoot them.

what law are you defending? Please I'm dying to know this.

 

[jc456]

It was the choice of the shooter to shoot, when he more than likely didn't need to.

I don't care, he will get the consequence for his choice right? What is the difference? Why are you hell bent to save a villian, I don't get it. Are you one? Are you wanting to be one and are scared to come out of the closet? just curious how a douchebag like you functions in society.

Money is never worth killing for.

Then why are there armed guards at all the banks?

To protect the people, not the money. The money they hand over, it's policy...

So armored truck drivers carry guns to protect???

You lost this argument pages ago. Stop while you still have an ounce of integrity left.

he has none, so he has none to lose. He's but a mere douchebag.

 

[HereWeGoAgain]

Shoudnt he be able to just ask nicely for all the money?

Maybe. And it was a paintball gun...

Wait a minute? Are you saying our newly departed criminal tried to rob a store with a paintball gun?

If so he needed to die and I hope he didnt breed.

 

[PaintMyHouse]

It was the choice of the shooter to shoot, when he more than likely didn't need to.

I don't care, he will get the consequence for his choice right? What is the difference? Why are you hell bent to save a villian, I don't get it. Are you one? Are you wanting to be one and are scared to come out of the closet? just curious how a douchebag like you functions in society.

Money is never worth killing for.

Then why are there armed guards at all the banks?

To protect the people, not the money. The money they hand over, it's policy...

So armored truck drivers carry guns to protect???

You lost this argument pages ago. Stop while you still have an ounce of integrity left.

They carry guns to protect themselves and very large amounts of easy to grab cash but if they get trapped dollars to donuts the policy is hand it over, not die trying to protect the money.

 

[jc456]

Then what was the gun for?

As a threat. Why would they just hand over cash, especially in a place like that, just because they asked, although that undoubtedly is their policy.

Yes it was a threat, a threat to everyone's lives there. So someone rightfully decided he was not going to leave his fate in the hands of some armed thug robber.

Strange that you would defend an armed robber to this degree.

I'm defending Law and Order. Just because someone is committing a crime doesn't mean you can just shoot them.

You're defending law and order by claiming an armed robber should be allowed to threaten and possibly execute anyone he wants.

If someone is committing a crime that is threatening the lives of anyone, yes you can shoot them.

That is untrue, why he might be charged, and there was likely no real threat at all, it was just a robbery.

and what if the owner didn't turn over the money, what is it then?

 

[jc456]

I don't care, he will get the consequence for his choice right? What is the difference? Why are you hell bent to save a villian, I don't get it. Are you one? Are you wanting to be one and are scared to come out of the closet? just curious how a douchebag like you functions in society.

Money is never worth killing for.

Then why are there armed guards at all the banks?

To protect the people, not the money. The money they hand over, it's policy...

So armored truck drivers carry guns to protect???

You lost this argument pages ago. Stop while you still have an ounce of integrity left.

They carry guns to protect themselves and very large amounts of easy to grab cash but if they get trapped dollars to donuts the policy is hand it over, not die trying to protect the money.

right...................................right.................................... funny stuff there Frances.