What's new
By:
Filters
TerraForums Venus Flytrap, Nepenthes, Drosera and more talk

Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

Bad guys lose again

  • #21
Lots of people don't completely analyze every situation and adding a gun at that moment can make a situation even worse. The major difference between good guys and bad guys is that good guys are less inclined to hurt people. Which puts them at a distinct disadvantage when guns come out. A marine can safely pull out a gun because of being conditioned to use it against another person and to shoot to kill. I don't know if I would.
 
  • #22
Don't know if you could shoot to kill? I couldn't do it personally. I could shoot to maim if my life were in danger but I wouldn't shoot to kill.
 
  • #23
I know this is going to degenerate into all guns are bad deal, but think for a second: If they repeal the second amendment most law abiding people would eventually turn in their guns. But guess what? Criminals are not law abiding people. They will keep their guns. That would put them in the drivers seat and give them carte-blanch to do what they want. You and your family would be completely defenseless.

Another fallacy to deal with: The police are not here to prevent crime. They can't do it. And the ACLU won't let them do it. There are not enough of them to do so. They would have to be on every street corner to have any real effect. They are there to solve crimes after they have been committed. The only person who has any real chance of keeping yourself safe is you. Nobody can take advantage of you unless you let them. The average criminal is a coward and a bully. If you stand up to him and defend yourself, odds are they will back down and look for an easier mark.

Hey JLAP, I hope you are never put in that kind of situation. If you try to shoot someone in the arm or leg during a bad situation, odds are you are going to miss, and you will be critically wounded. The torso is the largest target, and the one you have the best chance to hit.
 
  • #24
This kind of relates to this story.

Great Answer from a Florida Sheriff


Florida's got it right. Bravo for Sheriff Judd!!!

As reported earlier this week, some dirtbag who got pulled over in a routine traffic stop in Florida ended up "executing" the deputy who stopped him. The deputy was shot eight times, including once behind his right ear at close range.. Another deputy was wounded and a police dog killed.

A statewide manhunt ensued. The low-life was found hiding in a wooded area with his gun. SWAT team officers fired and hit the guy 68 times.

Now here's the kicker: Naturally, the media asked why they shot him 68 times. Polk County Sheriff Grady Judd, told the Orlando Sentinel,

"That's all the bullets we had."
Click to expand...
 
  • #25
"That's all the bullets we had."

:-)) Ozzy, my wife and I got a good laugh out of that article!:-))


:-)) :-)) :-)) :-)) :-))
 
  • #26
  • #27
HAHA! Nice!
 
  • #28
seedjar said:
I'm not entirely comfortable with the idea of a 71-year-old with a concealed weapons permit. I can understand wanting to defend yourself, but somebody got killed... that's absurd. Two kids robbing a Subway are nothing to be worried about. How much could they have gotten away with - maybe $200? Obviously these guys were small-time. I have some very serious doubts that that old dude was in any real danger. Fairly irresponsible if you ask me.
~Joe
Click to expand...

Would it be absurd if the old man was shot dead? There was more at stake here than $200. Who knows who would have been next...
 
  • #30
You read about a deputy killed, another wounded, & a police dog killed and you walk away laughing because a sherrif said they shot the bad guy 68 times because that's all the bullets they had?
 
  • #31
We aren't laughing at the casualties. Just the dry, understated comment by the Sherrif, and the stupidity of the reporters. It is called sarcasm. The implication is that they would have shot the perp more times if they would have had more bullets. I think those of us who laughed at the comment pictured ourselves in the same situation and agreed with the sentiments. For what the blankety-blank did, 68 bullets wasn't enough.
 
  • #32
bpullin said:
We aren't laughing at the casualties. Just the dry, understated comment by the Sherrif, and the stupidity of the reporters. It is called sarcasm. The implication is that they would have shot the perp more times if they would have had more bullets. I think those of us who laughed at the comment pictured ourselves in the same situation and agreed with the sentiments. For what the blankety-blank did, 68 bullets wasn't enough.
Click to expand...
EXACTLY!! While the loss of any life is tragic. There's the occasional need to up the chlorine dose to the gene pool.
 
  • #33
Well, that's more of a social problem not a genetic one, I think. If he were born into an upperc lass family, sure he may have turned out the same way but most likely not. Poverty breeds crime.
 
  • #34
Exactly! To see a scary collection of social pathologies, visit an elite prep school. The difference is that they can feed their vices without turning to petty crime.
 
  • #35
What do you mean by feed their vices?
 
  • #36
herenorthere said:
You read about a deputy killed, another wounded, & a police dog killed and you walk away laughing because a sherrif said they shot the bad guy 68 times because that's all the bullets they had?
Click to expand...

Yeah... sorry :(.
 
  • #37
The difference is that they can feed their vices without turning to petty crime.
Click to expand...

No, instead they swindle stockholders out of millions and screw employees out of their entire retirement funds just because they can. "Corporate ethics" is an oxymoron.

As for the incident that spawned this post, there's absolutely no way to know whether it was justified. The demeanor and threats used against the old man could have been mild to severe, and it's conceivable that he did seriously believe his life was in danger. Or he could have just over-reacted. Without very particular details, such as precisely what the robbers said and did word-for-word, anything we postulate is mere speculation.

Mokele
 
  • #38
As for the incident that spawned this post, there's absolutely no way to know whether it was justified.
Click to expand...
The Ex-Marine was not charged with a crime by the Broward Sherriffs Department. That should answer the above question.
 
  • #39
It doesn't. Maybe it was justified, or maybe there wasn't enough, if any, evidence to convict, or maybe the sheriff's department wasn't going to charge an ex-marine for such a shooting. Or maybe something else. We'll never know.

This weekend in Hartford, police chased a 22 year old into a building and the guy was later found dead of head injuries on the pavement below a 3rd floor window. Sunday's paper quoted the police saying he must have fallen while trying to get away. As expected, Monday's paper quoted people from the neighborhood saying they saw police push him out. Both sides might believe what they're saying.
 
  • #40
Of course it does not answer the question. It could just show that the sheriff's department does not know exactly what went down there either.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top