Topic: Bikers foil robbery

[JLeather]

http://www.cnn.com/2008/WORLD/asiapcf/02/28/biker.meeting/index.html

[SteveD CB500F]

Good for them!

If it had happened here the headline would have been: "20 bikers arrested for beating up robbers"...

[dusterdude]

yea,same here.

[medic09]

yea,same here.

Yep.

(Ex-) Marine was just convicted here of killing a robber.  Admittedly he shot the guy after chasing him down for two blocks.  But the robber broke into a family's home at night, thereby creating a threat to wife, baby, and father.  The father attacks and then chases him down to defend his family.  In the process of the robber resisting, the marine shoots him.  (And if the guy got away, he would likely attack another family, eh?)

The father/husband received jail time (I understand, though I sympathize with him), and HAS TO PAY THE ROBBER'S FAMILY $500/MONTH FOR FIVE YEARS!  So now, we're posthumously rewarding criminals!  I know, I know...the robber's family lost the income from his 'gainful employment'. 

If that Australian incident had happened here, the criminals would sue the club for injury and wrongful imprisonment.     And probably sue the police, as well, for not defending them...

[dusterdude]

now that about sucks.

[750goes]

we heard it on the news yesterday morning and I couldn't stop laughing.... they were lucky they only got tied up...
I think there is another name for that biker group as well - have a guess??

[JLeather]

An Aussie chapter of the Hells Angels?

[gregimotis]

A couple years ago here, a pair of gay guys were in a bar and one of the patrons started hassling them.  Eventually they left the bar, went outside and got in their van to leave.  The guy followed them out and began punching the driver through his car window.
Attacker got his arm caught up in the seat belt and was dragged some distance - considerable damage to his feet etc.

A jury decided against the driver saying that while driving away from an attacker might have been reasonable, he should have stopped before he did and let the guy (helped the guy) get un-stuck.

-------------

In the movie Pulp Fiction when Jules and Vincent are discussing whether Marsellous Wallace should have thrown a guy out of a window for flirting with his wife,  Vincent argues that the guy shouldn't have done been flirting with her, but didn't deserve to be thrown out a window and have his back broken for it.  Vincent's reply:

Doesn't matter whether he deserved it or not, what did he think was gonna happen?  Motherf*cker shoulda f*ckin' known f*ckin better.


I think there should be a 'Motherf*cker shoulda f*ckin' known f*ckin better' defense in law:

If you hadn't been in other people's houses, they wouldn't have chased you down and shot your a**.  If you hadn't been sticking your fist in other peoples cars, they wouldn't have dragged your dumba*s across town.

Honestly, why are we rewarding freakin' sociopaths?  Christ, that kinda stuff aggravates me.

(/rant off) (/hijack off)

[fuzzybutt]

kind of like the idiot that tried to strongarm money from me as i was leaving.................

















the pistol range.

[Raul CB750K1]

So, what's the outcome?

Two would-be robbers in jail. The crime was not commited so it has a lower sentence than if the crime was actually commited. If they don't have crime record they may be left free before the trial, and even when found guilty, if the sentence is low they won't even go to jail -at least that's what happens in Spain if you are sentenced to less than 2 years.

Say they succeed in robbing. How much could have they stole from the cashier? $300? $500? $1000?

How much will it cost to recover the damaged furniture?


Maybe the best outcome would have been if the robbers suceeded and they claim the money to the insurance company. So sad but maybe that would have been the way the bar  owners end up better off.

[medic09]

A couple years ago here, a pair of gay guys were in a bar and one of the patrons started hassling them.  Eventually they left the bar, went outside and got in their van to leave.  The guy followed them out and began punching the driver through his car window.
Attacker got his arm caught up in the seat belt and was dragged some distance - considerable damage to his feet etc.

A jury decided against the driver saying that while driving away from an attacker might have been reasonable, he should have stopped before he did and let the guy (helped the guy) get un-stuck.

-------------

In the movie Pulp Fiction when Jules and Vincent are discussing whether Marsellous Wallace should have thrown a guy out of a window for flirting with his wife,  Vincent argues that the guy shouldn't have done been flirting with her, but didn't deserve to be thrown out a window and have his back broken for it.  Vincent's reply:

Doesn't matter whether he deserved it or not, what did he think was gonna happen?  Motherf*cker shoulda f*ckin' known f*ckin better.


I think there should be a 'Motherf*cker shoulda f*ckin' known f*ckin better' defense in law:

If you hadn't been in other people's houses, they wouldn't have chased you down and shot your a**.  If you hadn't been sticking your fist in other peoples cars, they wouldn't have dragged your dumba*s across town.

Honestly, why are we rewarding freakin' sociopaths?  Christ, that kinda stuff aggravates me.

(/rant off) (/hijack off)

Interestingly, the 'clause' Greg suggests was discussed thousands of years ago.  There is a discussion in the Talmud about the responsibility of the homeowner when there is a break-in.  If there is a way of clearly knowing that there is no danger to the inhabitants, then killing the robber is considered a liability.  But if not (such as the robber enters in the dark of night), then the robber should know that a property owner will be afraid, will defend his property (never mind his family!), and the robber has taken his own life in his hands.  In other words, the (expletive deleted) should've known what could happen...

Hey Greg, how's that motor coming?

[gregimotis]

Hey Greg, how's that motor coming?

Slowly, as I'm a busy guy.  Got the valve cover off - I gotta admit I'm feeling a little bit yellow looking at all those parts in there.

[Rocking-M]

Hey Medic, this same principle is found in the New Testament.

"A strong man keepth his house".

Were I was raised the deputies would have help drag the would be robber back to the house and
then made it clear he was in the house.

[BobbyR]

yea,same here.

Yep.

(Ex-) Marine was just convicted here of killing a robber.  Admittedly he shot the guy after chasing him down for two blocks.  But the robber broke into a family's home at night, thereby creating a threat to wife, baby, and father.  The father attacks and then chases him down to defend his family.  In the process of the robber resisting, the marine shoots him.  (And if the guy got away, he would likely attack another family, eh?)

The father/husband received jail time (I understand, though I sympathize with him), and HAS TO PAY THE ROBBER'S FAMILY $500/MONTH FOR FIVE YEARS!  So now, we're posthumously rewarding criminals!  I know, I know...the robber's family lost the income from his 'gainful employment'. 

If that Australian incident had happened here, the criminals would sue the club for injury and wrongful imprisonment.     And probably sue the police, as well, for not defending them...

I had to take courses each year in "physical force" to retain my Peace officer status. The problem this guy ran into was chasing down the perp and popping him after the fact. You can use deadly force to prevent certain felonies, and you can use it if "you reasonably believe" your life or another's is in imminent danger.
Many here own firearms and I believe in that wholeheartedly, and I do feel that we have right to defend ourselves from attack. However, once the perp broke off the engagement and fled, it was over. What the Marine was then considered retribution. I would caution you all to be prudent.
I have a friend who shot a Burglar in his home. it was a clean shoot, but he still needed to go before a Grand Jury as a matter of course. It cost him $10K in legal fees. Prudence my friends.
The Marine forgot the rules of engagement during wartime is different than civilian life. I feel sorry for him.

[fuzzybutt]

yea,same here.

Yep.

(Ex-) Marine was just convicted here of killing a robber.  Admittedly he shot the guy after chasing him down for two blocks.  But the robber broke into a family's home at night, thereby creating a threat to wife, baby, and father.  The father attacks and then chases him down to defend his family.  In the process of the robber resisting, the marine shoots him.  (And if the guy got away, he would likely attack another family, eh?)

The father/husband received jail time (I understand, though I sympathize with him), and HAS TO PAY THE ROBBER'S FAMILY $500/MONTH FOR FIVE YEARS!  So now, we're posthumously rewarding criminals!  I know, I know...the robber's family lost the income from his 'gainful employment'. 

If that Australian incident had happened here, the criminals would sue the club for injury and wrongful imprisonment.     And probably sue the police, as well, for not defending them...

I had to take courses each year in "physical force" to retain my Peace officer status. The problem this guy ran into was chasing down the perp and popping him after the fact. You can use deadly force to prevent certain felonies, and you can use it if "you reasonably believe" your life or another's is in imminent danger.
Many here own firearms and I believe in that wholeheartedly, and I do feel that we have right to defend ourselves from attack. However, once the perp broke off the engagement and fled, it was over. What the Marine was then considered retribution. I would caution you all to be prudent.
I have a friend who shot a Burglar in his home. it was a clean shoot, but he still needed to go before a Grand Jury as a matter of course. It cost him $10K in legal fees. Prudence my friends.
The Marine forgot the rules of engagement during wartime is different than civilian life. I feel sorry for him.

+1

[Raul CB750K1]

So BobbyR, the options are either let the burglar steal you and get on with your life, or shoot him, spend 10K in legal fees and risk inprisonment. Even when it is sad to admit it, the best option is still not to shoot the burglar down. Burglars seem less dangerous than the legal system.

[Terry in Australia]

I'm finding it hard to believe that you guys really think that it's ok to shoot and kill someone just because they break into your house? Faark! 

[troppo]

I'm finding it hard to believe that you guys really think that it's ok to shoot and kill someone just because they break into your house? Faark! 

yeah, here in australia we just beat them to a pulp with a 4x2

[Soos]

I'm finding it hard to believe that you guys really think that it's ok to shoot and kill someone just because they break into your house? Faark! 

And you don't?
Come on.....

If some speedfreak comes in my house at 2 in the morning, I hope my wife shoots and asks later, if I don't first.
Do you know if he is there to kill for the fun of it, or is intending on raping a female occupant of the house(who knows, you might look good if he is gay)?
Or simply steal stuff?

You don't know.
It's not like they knock, and announce "Just here to steal stuff, put away the guns away please".


I am a firm believer that if you enter my house, you better have a gun, cause if you don't, i'm shooting first.
Or knock.


l8r

[mmtsquid]

+1 to that.
Anyone breaking into my house has left their right to life at the threshold of my door.

[Frankenkit]

It's much more legal and much more gratifying to aim for non-vitals, I'd think.  Why kill a man if I can shoot him in the kneecap, shoulder or groin?  If I can take out a joint or something else and then call the police, I'll have  non-lethally wounded him (unless he bled to death) and would be much less at risk for criminal charges. 

Just saying.

[TwoTired]

So BobbyR, the options are either let the burglar steal you and get on with your life, or shoot him, spend 10K in legal fees and risk inprisonment. Even when it is sad to admit it, the best option is still not to shoot the burglar down. Burglars seem less dangerous than the legal system.

So, if burglars, rapists, and murderers are a cancer to society, you are advocating letting the cancer have its way?

My expectation is that when and if cancer visits you, you will either change your stance, or no longer be able to advocate cancer's advance.  Your life may not always be so sheltered, you know.  And, it is for certain that not everyone's life IS sheltered.  When did you become the deity that decides who loses their shelter from harm.  Are you willing or capable of aiding your neighbor when society's cancer comes to prey?  Or, is that simply someone else's problem that you can moralize after the fact?

[mark]

It's much more legal and much more gratifying to aim for non-vitals, I'd think.  Why kill a man if I can shoot him in the kneecap, shoulder or groin?  If I can take out a joint or something else and then call the police, I'll have  non-lethally wounded him (unless he bled to death) and would be much less at risk for criminal charges. 

Just saying.

.... but a lot more at risk for a civil case. Shoot-to-maim is a bad idea, imo. Besides, in all the other shooting sports, one is taught to aim for (a)the middle of the target... or (b)a vital area.

Right?

 

[BobbyR]

So BobbyR, the options are either let the burglar steal you and get on with your life, or shoot him, spend 10K in legal fees and risk inprisonment. Even when it is sad to admit it, the best option is still not to shoot the burglar down. Burglars seem less dangerous than the legal system.

It is a matter of you are only allowed the proper amount of force necessary to end the engagement. I have a personal belief that I will not take someones life for a TV set ro something else that I am insured for. It is harder to live with killing people than some people imagine.
many Years ago I was the victim of a an attempted carjacking and robbery. Two guys stood in  front of my car so I could not pull out of the space, that was serious misjudgement.

[upperlake04]

..many Years ago I was the victim of a an attempted carjacking and robbery. Two guys stood in  front of my car so I could not pull out of the space, that was serious misjudgement.

 and..