Customer shoots, kills robber at Detroit McDonalds

[GreenStormCloud]

http://www.freep.com/article/20110819/NEWS01/110819058/Customer-shoots-kills-robber-Detroit-McDonalds-?odyssey=nav%7Chead

An attempted robbery that ended in gunfire interrupted a busy west side McDonalds this afternoon. The would be robber was shot and killed by a restaurant customer.

SNIP

One witness who did not want to be identified said the man walked into the McDonalds, hopped over the counter, took cash and pointed a gun at customers.

At the scene, family members of the slain robber said he was 15 or 16 years old.

They boy's uncle at the scene was saying that the teen wasn't like that.

From another site I found that the shooter was a retired gentleman carrying concealed legally.

[onehandle]

1. Let's Party!

Another 'goblin' bites the dust!

Wooooohoooooooo!

:party: :party: :party: :party: :party: :party: :party: :party: :party: :bounce: :bounce: :bounce: :bounce: :bounce: :bounce: :bounce: :beer: :beer: :beer: :beer: :beer: :beer: :beer: :beer: :fistbump: :fistbump: :fistbump: :fistbump: :fistbump: :fistbump: :fistbump: :headbang: :headbang: :headbang: :headbang: :headbang: :headbang: :headbang: :yourock: :yourock: :yourock: :yourock: :yourock: :yourock: :yourock: :woohoo: :woohoo: :woohoo: :woohoo: :woohoo: :woohoo: :woohoo: :applause: :applause: :applause: :applause: :applause: :applause: :applause: :applause: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl:

[PavePusher]

2. Ummm...

http://www.google.com/imgres?q=lighten+up+francis&hl=en&sa=X&biw=1280&bih=869&tbm=isch&prmd=ivns&tbnid=nN6NGdhqxRINvM:&imgrefurl=http://www.motifake.com/good-fathers-demotivational-posters-71668.html&docid=zZmwNnG0e_Z27M&w=640&h=532&ei=AOVOTsyuMOHjiAKYkr2mAQ&zoom=1&iact=rc&dur=297&page=1&tbnh=161&tbnw=204&start=0&ndsp=22&ved=1t:429,r:4,s:0&tx=63&ty=72

[Riftaxe]

14. Let's Cry!

obviously that customer made it an unsafe work environment for the robber, now there is no chance he can continue his career of violent crime.

Imagine the lives of all the future victims who will never have the chance to be subject to the tender mercies of this poor armed robbers violence!!

:grr: :grr: :grr: :grr: :grr: :grr: :grr: :grr:
:wtf: :wtf: :wtf: :wtf: :wtf: :wtf: :wtf: :wtf:
x( x( x( x( x( x( x( x(
:scared: :scared: :scared: :scared: :scared:
:thumbsdown::thumbsdown::thumbsdown::thumbsdown::thumbsdown::thumbsdown::thumbsdown::thumbsdown:

[SteveM]

42. There does seem to be a peculiar fondness for da thug on these pages.

[digitaln3rd]

3. Yay for more wingnuts with guns?

Screw the law - let's just go back to the Wild West! Everyone for themselves!

[GreenStormCloud]

4. 41 states are now shall-issue on CC.

Four statew allow carry, open or concealed without a license. The Wild West that your side keeps predicting still hasn't happened.

[Maine_Nurse]

5. Uhhhh, sounds like the law was complied with.,,

some folks just beg to receive lead therapy.

[Name removed]

8. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Maine_Nurse]

9. Uhh, lethal force is allowed under the law under certain circumstances...

and it is sometimes wise to use it. I don't care if you like it or not.

[iverglas]

10. if I had been talking about the law

your pissy response would have been meaningful.

What I was talking about was your thorouhgly vomit-inducing blood lust, this not being the first time you have expressed it.

[ManiacJoe]

11. Your interpretation of post #5 seems a bit radical.

:shrug:

[SteveM]

44. Oh, wait a few posts -- that's pretty mild. nt

[ProgressiveProfessor]

17. "snork"

You seem to use that work a lot too.

[ProgressiveProfessor]

16. Not so sure that was a death by [retired] cop scenario

Stupid person scenario is much more likely.

[gejohnston]

23. How about a history lesson?

Louis La Moore wrote good stories for entertainment, but he and Ned Buntline did not write documentaries. John Wayne did not act in them either.

[SteveM]

43. Same on bar room chant by the gun-controller/banner.

Just for grins (though you don't have to answer), do you sympathize with and hold essentially without blame the thug; if so, how much blame should da thug receive, and what kind sentence should he/she receive?

[TrainToCry]

6. Vigilante!

[oneshooter]

21. No, a retired Chicago cop.

"A Friday afternoon shootout between a teenager trying to rob a Detroit McDonalds and a retired Detroit police officer ended in the teen’s death, police said."

Oneshooter
Armd and Livin in Texas

[SteveM]

45. B-r-r-r-U-U-P!

[iverglas]

7. a little confused still

http://www.therepublic.com/view/story/aeb373d2ce114cd294dce28ab093f6b5/MI--Restaurant-Shooting-Detroit/

A retired Detroit police officer has shot and killed a male during an armed robbery at a McDonald's restaurant on the city's west side.

Detroit police spokesman Samuel Balogun says the former officer was inside the restaurant during the early Friday afternoon holdup and exchanged gunfire with the suspect.

Nobody seems to be saying who fired first.


Meanwhile ...

http://www.suntimes.com/7129313-417/flagship-mcdonalds-robbed-at-gunpoint-in-drive-thru-lane.html

Updated: August 17, 2011 7:02PM

Police in west suburban Oak Brook are looking for two men who robbed the flagship McDonald’s through a drive-thru lane Sunday night.

... A gray Toyota 4-Runner with two males inside approached the cashier in the drive-thru lane and the person in the passenger seat pointed a long gun at the cashier and demanded money, police said.

After getting the money, the men fled and were last seen near the 2200 block of Route 83.

Nobody injured, nobody dead.


Yeesh, lots of McDonalds hold-ups.

http://www.wapt.com/news/28883982/detail.html

UPDATED: 3:27 pm CDT August 17, 2011

Police said two men walked up to the drive-through window of the McDonald's at 1330 E. Woodrow Wilson Drive on Aug. 1 and demanded money from the clerk. A witness followed them as they ran away, police said.

... Bratton has been charged with armed robbery, police said.

Police said the men may also be linked to the robbery this week of two men in the parking lot of the McDonald's on Fortification Street. In that case, men were sitting in a car in the parking lot when they were approached by two men offering to sell them guns. The men in the car tried to drive away, but the gunmen opened fire, shooting one of the passenger's in the arm, police said.

Guns to spare, in their case.

Google news mcdonalds robbery. I lost count for this week alone.

Where do they get all these guns??? I'm just so ... flummoxed ...

If anybody wants to hunt up an armed robbery of a Mcdonalds in Canada ... or hey, even a Tim Horton's ...

... Well, I almost found one:

http://telegraphjournal.canadaeast.com/city/article/1430551

Crime: Incidents on par with last year despite recent spate of holdups, deputy police chief says

So far this year, there have been 28 robberies - 23 of which have resulted in arrests and charges. The number is about on par with last year, said Bruce Connell, deputy chief of the Saint John Police Force.

... The deputy's comments came after two men on bicycles robbed two victims in the city Monday night.

The first was at about 11:15 p.m. in the area of Tim Hortons on King Street uptown. A 17-year-old victim was robbed. The suspects did not appear to have a weapon, said Sgt. Lori Magee.

No mention of any guns in any of the robberies. And no dead people.

[ProgressiveProfessor]

18. Perhaps you will find this instructive as to why retired LEOs carry firearms

[iverglas]

19. no, I don't

And I actually didn't need any more instruction in what happens when a society allows social inequality to reach the depths it has reached in the US and then does pretty much everything possible to make sure that anybody who wants a gun gets one.

[ProgressiveProfessor]

20. That was not what was proffered, but suit yourself

[rl6214]

120. Ah yes, place the blame on the social inequalities in the US

Never mind that many youths that are subjected to the inequalities pull themselves up by their boot straps, go to college and make something of themselves (Barack Obama).

[iverglas]

133. it ain't just me doing it

It's me and a hell of a lot of other people who actually know what we're talking about.

Or no, I know. It's just some strange coincidence that the people who commit crimes are way disproportionately people who come from backgrounds that left them undereducated, unemployed, badly housed and living in underdeveloped communities -- in the richest society on earth.

It's just genetic. People of colour, say, are genetically predisposed to commit crimes. But hey, they could still overcome that disability; some of them do, certainly.

So we're back to it being coincidence, I guess.

It's also just a huge coincidence that societies with the greatest income inequality (and the US is way up there on that scale) have higher crime rates than more egalitarian societies.

http://siteresources.worldbank.org/DEC/Resources/Crime&Inequality.pdf

INEQUALITY AND VIOLENT CRIME*
PABLO FAJNZYLBER, University of Minas Gerais
DANIEL LEDERMAN,
World Bank
and
NORMAN LOAYZA
World Bank

ABSTRACT
We investigate the robustness and causality of the link between income inequality and violent crime across countries. First, we study the correlation between the Gini index and homicide and robbery rates within and between countries. Second, we examine the partial correlation by considering other crime determinants. Third, we control for the endogeneity of inequality by isolating its exogenous impact on these crime rates. Fourth, we control for measurement error in crime rates by modeling it as both unobserved country effects and random noise. Finally, we examine the robustness of this partial correlation to alternative measures of inequality. The panel data consist of nonoverlapping 5-year averages for 39 countries during 1965–95 for homicides and 37 countries during 1970–94 for robberies. Crime rates and inequality are positively correlated within countries and, particularly, between countries, and this correlation reflects causation from inequality to crime rates, even after controlling for other crime determinants.

http://cjr.sagepub.com/content/18/2/182.short?rss=1&ssource=mfc

Poverty, Income Inequality, and Violent Crime: A Meta-Analysis of Recent Aggregate Data Studies

Ching-Chi Hsieh and
M. D. Pugh

Abstract
In the late 1970s and early 1980s, several important reviews of the literature failed to establish a clear consensus on the relationship between economic conditions and violent crime. The research presented here applies the procedures of meta-analysis to 34 aggregate data studies reporting on violent crime, poverty, and income inequality. These studies reported a total of 76 zero-order correlation coefficients for all measures of violent crime with either poverty or income inequality. Of the 76 coefficients, all but 2, or 97 percent, were positive. Of the positive coefficients, nearly 80 percent were of at least moderate strength (>.25). It is concluded that poverty and income inequality are each associated with violent crime. The analysis, however, shows considerable variation in the estimated size of the relationships and suggests that homicide and assault may be more closely associated with poverty or income inequality than are rape and robbery.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/9683374

Social capital, income inequality, and firearm violent crime.
Kennedy BP, Kawachi I, Prothrow-Stith D, Lochner K, Gupta V.
Source
Division of Public Health Practice, Harvard School of Public Health, Boston, MA 02115, USA.

Abstract

Studies have shown that poverty and income are powerful predictors of homicide and violent crime. We hypothesized that the effect of the growing gap between the rich and poor is mediated through an undermining of social cohesion, or social capital, and that decreased social capital is in turn associated with increased firearm homicide and violent crime. Social capital was measured by the weighted responses to two items from the U.S. General Social Survey: the per capita density of membership in voluntary groups in each state; and the level of social trust, as gauged by the proportion of residents in each state who believed that "most people would take advantage of you if they got the chance". Age-standardized firearm homicide rates for the years 1987-1991 and firearm robbery and assault incidence rates for years 1991-1994 were obtained for each of the 50 U.S. states. Income inequality was strongly correlated with firearm violent crime (firearm homicide, r = 0.76) as well as the measures of social capital: per capita group membership (r = -0.40) and lack of social trust (r = 0.73). In turn, both social trust (firearm homicide, r = 0.83) and group membership (firearm homicide, r = -0.49) were associated with firearm violent crime. These relationships held when controlling for poverty and a proxy variable for access to firearms. The profound effects of income inequality and social capital, when controlling for other factors such as poverty and firearm availability, on firearm violent crime indicate that policies that address these broader, macro-social forces warrant serious consideration.

http://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/ecolet/v101y2008i1p31-33.html

Income inequality and crime in the United States
Author Info
Choe, Jongmook

Abstract

This paper investigates the relationship between income inequality and crime. Results show that there is a strong and robust effect of relative income inequality on burglary. Effect on robbery is also strong and robust in most cases.

http://www.equalitytrust.org.uk/resources/publications/research-digest-1-violent-crime-web

Income Inequality and Violent Crime
Key Points

The relationship between inequality and homicide has been found in many different settings-among developed and developing countries, both between and within countries. Relationships between inequality and violence are stronger when comparing whole societies and tend to be weaker when looking at small areas.

Several studies have found that small reductions in income inequality cause large reductions in homicide.

Inequality affects homicide, whereas a society's average income level does not.

The relationship between inequality and homicide seems to be part of a more general divisive effect of inequality which weakens the social fabric.

Almost two-thirds of the higher homicide rates in southern (as compared to northern) states of the United States are attributable to their greater income inequality. There are lower rates of homicide in the Canadian provinces than in the states of the USA as a result of their smaller income differences.

... Contrasting trends: England and Wales, and Japan

England and Wales experienced dramatic increases in inequality during the last quarter of the 20th century, particularly during the later 1980s. In contrast, Japan became a much more equal society during the second half of the 20th century. Homicide rates in England and Wales doubled between 1967 and 2001, but in Japan homicide rates fell by 70 percent during the second half of the 20th century. In England and Wales the increase occurred mainly among young working-aged men from poor areas. In Japan the decline in violence was particularly large amongst young men.

You might want to broaden your education. There's a start for you.

[GKirk]

27. "Nobody seems to be saying who fired first"

Why is that important?

[iverglas]

29. why do you ask?

Are you a person who couldn't care less waht the actual facts of a situation are as long it gives you the opportunity to spew an opinion?

I'm not.

[GKirk]

35. Way to not answer the question...n/t

[iverglas]

37. way to feign being really really dim

Here's your answer:

It is important because intelligent, sincere people of good will do not form, let alone express, opinions about things without having sufficient facts about the things in question that their opinions will be based on something other than personal prejudice ... or, in many instances on exhibit in this forum, worse.

The answer was so obviously conveyed in my post that I have no idea why you would want to portray yourself as the kind of person who didn't see it.

[GKirk]

47. Did I insult you when I asked you the question?

Why would you attempt to insult me in response? Doesn't seem very grown up of you.

[YllwFvr]

67. The robber need not have fired first

To be justified. Generally, he would be safe from prosecution if he had reason to believe someone was in danger of severe bodily injury or death. If someone had a gun pointed at another, that is enough of a threat.

[iverglas]

72. yes, little lessons in the obvious are always very welcome

My initial post referred to this in the news report:

"exchanged gunfire with the suspect"

about which I said:

Nobody seems to be saying who fired first.

Nobody, me included, said that the robber needed to have fired first for there to be justification for using force against him.

I simply can't tell from that one news report, and all the others saying the same things, what actually happened. And I'm one of the few who seems to think that knowing what happened is wise before having an opinion about it.

Because the fact is that there sometimes isn't justification for shooting and killing somebody, even an armed robber pointing a gun at somebody else, hard as that may be for some people to accept.

Actual cops don't actually always shoot and kill people when they're in that situation, as I understand things. Actual cops sometimes seem to think that not killing somebody is preferable to killing somebody, all other things being equal.

I have no idea whether there was justification in this situation. None at all. Maybe I should go google-news it and see whether any more facts have been released.

And once again: the fact that something is defined as, or determined to be, justified in law, i.e. that no conviction for an offence is possible, does not mean that it was necessary or was justified morally.

[X_Digger]

84. "wise before having an opinion about it."

How would your opinion change based on who fired first?

[iverglas]

87. what opinion?

How would your opinion change based on who fired first?

I hadn't expressed an opinion. How could it change?

Any opinion I decided to have would be based on whatever facts I had that I considered to be sufficient for forming an opinion.

Who fired first would be one of those facts and only one of those facts, not necessarily any more significant than any other fact, or even as significant as any other fact.

I hope that helps.

Of course, I have no idea how anyone could form an opinion without knowing that fact among others, or why anyone would claim to have formed an opinion with so little basis for doing so.

[X_Digger]

91. Allow me to rephrase..

What part of your as-yet-undetermined opinion hinges, or is at least influenced by, who shot first?

If the cop shot first, does that add a "+1" to any particular interpretation of events?

[iverglas]

92. allow me to repeat myself

Maybe I can write it in words of one syllable, I don't know.

A fact situation is a fact SITUATION. It consists of a number of facts.

The question you refer to -- who fired first -- is ONE of the facts in a fact SITUATION.

How one fact in a fact SITUATION might influence my assessment of the fact SITUATION would almost certainly depend on a number of other facts in the fact SITUATION.

There are numerous other questions regarding elements of this fact SITUATION that are complete unknowns.

I have no idea what influence the answer to one question would have on my assessment of the SITUATION -- what weight that particular fact would carry in that assessment -- without knowing what the answers to those other questions are.

I don't really think I can put this any more clearly.

I could try to construct an analogy for you to help you understand, but I don't see that being worth the effort in all likelihood.

[X_Digger]

93. Ahh, another variation of the "I'm just askin.." tactic, then..

Don't actually take a position or express an opinion, just ask a series of questions intended to imply a position without doing so.

If I'd said something like, "Was the kid african american?"-- it would be a similar implication, with plausible deniability.

[iverglas]

97. for the love of fuck

I quoted one of the EXCEEDINGLY BRIEF and UNINFORMATIVE news reports at the time, which said:

Detroit police spokesman Samuel Balogun says the former officer was inside the restaurant during the early Friday afternoon holdup and exchanged gunfire with the suspect.

That is, one of the very few facts disclosed was that there had been an EXCHANGE OF GUNFIRE.

A question occurred to me: Nobody seems to be saying who fired first.

Deny the relevance of the answer all you want. The fact is that it is a RELEVANT FACT in the mind of anyone who sincerely wishes to do a genuine assessment of the fact situation in issue.


If I'd said something like, "Was the kid african american?"-- it would be a similar implication, with plausible deniability.

Yeah, kind of like every time, uh, somebody says "da thug" and then loudly protests that there is no racial overtone ... yeah.

Of course, if you had some basis for asserting that the answer to the question was relevant -- like, you suspected racism as a motive for shooting the kid -- it would have been an absolutely proper question to ask.

Wouldn't it? Eh?

I think it is relevant to ask what the "gunfire" consisted of: who fired first, how the sequence of events played out.

If you want to say you don't, I simply do not care.

Will that conclude this evening's entertainment on that subject?

Please.

[iverglas]

52. was there a point to this post?

I found it insulting, myself ..........

[GKirk]

65. You find a simple question insulting, really?!

You made a comment. I asked a question. Nothing sinister about that.

[GreenStormCloud]

63. It doesn't matter who fired first.

When an armed criminal is waving his gun around at customers, any armed citizen can shoot him. You don't have to wait for the thug to actually start shooting.

[iverglas]

73. "You don't have to wait for the thug to actually start shooting."

But if "you" are a normal, decent person, "you" might just not kill somebody unless "you" thought there was no alternative reasonably available.

I have no idea what the situation was in this case. Do you?

I guess I need to make this plainer.

I don't give a flying fuck whether any particular homicide was "justified" under the law of any jurisdiction.

My interest is in

(a) whether, in the reasonable belief of the person who committed the homicide, it was NECESSARY and thus MORALLY justified, or could have been avoided

(b) whether there is a significant likelihood that had the gun used to commit the homicide not been present in the situation, no one in the situation would have suffered injury or death

My interest is in what can be done to prevent / reduce the risk/incidence of harms occurring.

I don't care whether anyone else is interested in that or not, see?

Anyone who is not interested in those issues is pretty much beyond the pale of decency, by my own personal definition of that concept.



edited for clarity

[GreenStormCloud]

76. It was completely moral for the citizen to shoot the robber.

The robber was waving his gun around, threatening people with death or great bodily harm. The armed citizen stopped that threat. The lives of the innocent citizens have greater value than that of the person who is threatening them with immediate death.

Yelling, "Freeze" is a very good way to get yourself shot. That is exactly what happened to an armed citizen who intervened in a mass shooting in a mall. The shooter was already shooting people. The armed citizen drew his pistol and commanded the shooter to put his gun down. The shooter quickly whirled and shot the citizen. Action beats reaction.

[ProgressiveProfessor]

82. What should a "decent" person conclude when a criminal is brandishing a firearm in a threatening

manner? That he is unhappy with his happy meal? Even in Canada the brandishing of a firearm in a hostile manner is adequate cause for the use of deadly force.


I don't give a flying fuck whether any particular homicide was "justified" under the law of any jurisdiction.
.
.
.
I don't care whether anyone else is interested in that or not, see?
.
.
.
Anyone who is not interested in those issues is pretty much beyond the pale of decency, by my own personal definition of that concept.

So you have pretty well established you are on a soapbox balanced on your pet rock. That is fine. Any need to be quite so uncivil about it? Your behavior dissuades any converts you might have others convinced. As others have pointed out, your behavior is the most uncivil of any participants hereabouts.

[iverglas]

85. the question is what a *reasonable* person *would* conclude

... when a criminal is brandishing a firearm in a threatening manner.

Can you not give up with the games?

Conclusions are not a matter of decency/indecency or should/shouldn't (on any ground other than reasonableness), for fuck's sake.

Your question is simply incoherent, and I have no more idea why you keep generating such pointless noise than I have a pink unicorn in my backyard.


So, what would a reasonable person conclude when they see a person brandishing a firearm at somebody who is in possession of a significant amount of cash?

Probably -- given that they are probably also demanding the cash -- that they want the cash.

What would you conclude?


Even in Canada the brandishing of a firearm in a hostile manner is adequate cause for the use of deadly force.

Is that so? Can you cite me chapter and section, please? You seem to be the expert, so I would not want to disagree without giving you that opportunity.



So you have pretty well established you are on a soapbox balanced on your pet rock. That is fine. Any need to be quite so uncivil about it? Your behavior dissuades any converts you might have others convinced. As others have pointed out, your behavior is the most uncivil of any participants hereabouts.

And you continue to demonstrate that you have not the remotest interest in any genuine discourse, and are (for reasons I can't fathom, but I'm sure you have some) interested only in repeating the same tired boring crap over and over and over. Excising what I actually said from what I said and then repeating the same tired boring crap over and over and over without responding to anything I actually said is just ... the same tired boring crap.

Convert someone? How many times do I have to tell you my interest in doing that falls below zero on the interest scale?

I dunno. Did you think that repeating the same tired boring baseless disingenuous less than candid less than sincere crap over and over and over was converting somebody? Hell, not even the people who say they agree with the crap actually do, you know. Everybody apparently enjoys their little pantomime, though, so don't let me interfere.

[ProgressiveProfessor]

98. Actually that is not what you said

I used your exact words so as to facilitate dialogue. It is indeed the reasonable man theory but I chose not to correct you at that time.

It is quite clear you are content to bang your gong while on your soapbox...keep it up as you like. The rest of us will continue to have effective, earnest, and honest dialog and continue to mock and correct you as we feel lead.

Thanks for playing and providing the comic relief.


:popcorn:

[Name removed]

102. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Scout]

114. "The rest of us will continue to have effective, earnest, and honest dialog"

:rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl:

[Kennah]

86. Since you weren't there, how do you know there was "no alternative reasonably available"?

Police officers who investigate such things, and prosecutors who then bring charges or not, are the one's more likely to know. Still not seeing you in either group.

[iverglas]

88. SINCE I DID NOT SAY WHAT YOU ARE FALSELY ASSERTING I SAID

why would I even bother reading your post?

Here's what I said:

But if "you" are a normal, decent person, "you" might just not kill somebody unless "you" thought there was no alternative reasonably available.

If you have anything to say about WHAT I SAID, you feel free to do it.

Perhaps a nice night's sleep will help you sort your thoughts out.

[Kennah]

95. "Actual cops sometimes seem to think that not killing somebody is preferable to killing somebody"

If you really believed that, it seems you wouldn't be quite so angry in this thread.

[iverglas]

99. exactly what is wrong with you?

If you want to let me know, I can devise strategies for avoiding whatever your "issues" are and thus avoid being the target of any more of your bizarre fantasies about my emotional state.

If I really believed that "Actual cops sometimes seem to think that not killing somebody is preferable to killing somebody" ... well, I'd be living in the real world. Join me any time you like.

You might have to submit an application for permanent residence and pass the points test, of course.

[ProgressiveProfessor]

96. Perhaps you should take your own advice

Perhaps a nice night's sleep will help you sort your thoughts out.

He is not the one shouting and using profanity and generally being nasty.

[iverglas]

100. watch out

Those pearls are going to come off their string.

[ProgressiveProfessor]

101. Just trying to be civil and encourage the same, something in which you have no apparent interest.

I am clearly not the one swearing and otherwise worked up.

:popcorn:

[iverglas]

103. you are not the one swearing and otherwise worked up

Nope, you're the one pretending to diagnose someone else's emotional status by internet, armed with that community college diploma in computer repairs of yours.

I will try to conceal the fit of giggles I have worked myself up into as a result, out of respect for your tender ears.

[ProgressiveProfessor]

105. The facts speak for themselves...

And you do continue to amuse and dance.

[X_Digger]

83. Why should who fired first matter?

If the retired cop fired first, what then? Are you positing that there was any doubt that the robber actually would have shot?

If the people involved had serious doubt about that, they would have told the robber to fuck off, it would have become a man bits dog story, or an addition to the 'stupid shit criminals do' blotter.

What changes based on who fired first?

If nothing, then why even bring it up?

[iverglas]

89. see reply to post 84

Not much interested in answering different variations of the same question 85 times.

[Kennah]

94. Who shot first is irrelevant. Who is justified is what matters.

[iverglas]

104. if you want to join the conversation, feel free

I'm not starting all over again with your nonsense just because you've decided to take 5 seconds and plonk it onto the board.

[Hoopla Phil]

12. Just finished reading all the comments left after the article.

Some of the comments are just priceless!

[TheCowsCameHome]

13. Celebrate! Happy Meals on the house!

Who says it isn't fun to eat out?

[SteveM]

46. Why are you so happy when someone is killed? OH, that's irony, 'ey?

[TheCowsCameHome]

49. I'm not. I think it's awful.

But who ever posted this story seems to revel in a good shootout.

Now, who ordered McNuggets with their meal?

[SteveM]

50. "Revel in a good shootout?" That's you problem with this issue...

Everyday, we see gun-controller/banners post their police blotter incidents of criminals and thugs, most of whom have violated many laws including firearms-related laws already on the books, as if somehow this is the result of millions of Americans owning guns. Declining violent crime rates notwithstanding, the point of these police-blotter approach is to somehow paint a picture of out-of-control-crime (via guns) with little attempt to engage in what the posting means beyond a purely propaganda point.

So, you can expect those who support the Second are going to post how defensive gun uses occur -- by the hundreds of thousands each year. There is no evidence of "revelation in a good shootout," though some of us (me included) think that the jailing of a thug for life to get him or her out of the system is a good thing, and that the use of deadly force to prevent a violent, life-threatening crime is necessary and proper. Frankly, speaking for myself, I will not lose sleep over some punk getting shot and killed after he/she sticks a gun into the face of a store clerk, invades a home, attempts to violently rob a citizen, or tries to rape a woman.

There was a gruesome crime committed here in Austin I did not bother to post: The punk who committed this one stormed out of his apartment after arguing with his wife, went down a few doors to the apartment of a high school girl, broke in and while holding her down with a knife, proceeded to "do her." During this, he phoned his wife and let her hear the proceedings as he held the phone near. A mountain of gun-control laws, or a total ban on arms wouldn't have done a damned thing to prevent this, and I suppose the incident, from the standpoint of controller/banners, was irrelevant to this forum, no?

I don't favor capital punishment, but I won't lose a minute's sleep when he gets the needle. And he will.

[iverglas]

55. fascinating

Always so, to be afforded this glimpse into the netherworld of the weird.

I don't favor capital punishment, but I won't lose a minute's sleep when he gets the needle. And he will.

The victim is dead? You didn't mention that part. If not, then how you could possibly say you don't favour capital punishment, when you get all gleeful that someone who did not even commit a homicide will somehow be getting killed by the state ... well I dunno, but that one's making my head spin.


Everyday, we see gun-controller/banners post their police blotter incidents of criminals and thugs, most of whom have violated many laws including firearms-related laws already on the books, as if somehow this is the result of millions of Americans owning guns.

Actually, it's "as if" it is one absolutely foreseeable outcome of millions of "Americans" owning guns -- because it is.

So, you can expect those who support the Second are going to post how defensive gun uses occur -- by the hundreds of thousands each year.

Jim dandy. Post the incidents, and post the tall tales about the numbers of them.

Smearing the blood of the dead on one's body and doing a victory dance in a circle around the board is just something a little different, do ya see?

There is no evidence of "revelation in a good shootout,"

No, I don't suppose there is. There certainly is a lot of revelling in death. If you meant to say there wasn't, you're just, um, being wrong. As is plain on the face of this forum, to a garden slug.

[SteveM]

57. Oh, fiddle-d-dee. Only response: Girl was dead as a door nail. nt

[iverglas]

53. deleted

deleted, waste of time

[slackmaster]

15. Tragic waste of a young life

The boy made some poor choices.

[ileus]

22. gunners shooting unemployed kids, how hateful.

now what hidden gun criminal supplied his weapon? That's who is to blame here, some legal gun owner, or the gun maker, or you, or me, or someone else that supports the second. Shame on me...me damnit ME!

[Name removed]

24. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[one-eyed fat man]

25. Armed robbery

is a high risk game. If the the thieving little bastard didn't want to get shot he should have picked another endeavor. I have no sympathy for criminals dispatched by their victims.

[Starboard Tack]

31. Me neither. I also have no sympathy for the shooter.

[We_Have_A_Problem]

117. Dont think the shooter needs any sympathy.

He seems pretty much OK.

[Name removed]

34. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[iverglas]

74. y'know what?

I'm reposting it (typo and all)


why do so many people say this as if it mattered / anyone cared?

I have no sympathy for ... blahdy blahdy fuking blah

I have no interest in whom you do or do not have sympathy for.

Why would anyone?

I have no sympathy for you. None whatsoever. If I hear you have broken your leg, shall I jump for joy? Will anyone be interested in my feelings about your broken leg? Why would anyone?

*** Let's not play disingenuous here. My question, "shall I jump for joy?" was rhetorical:
OBVIOUSLY the answer was "no". The mere fact that one has no sympathy for someone
does NOT MEAN that one jumps for joy upon hearing of their misfortune, as so many in
this forum do when they hear of the killings of human beings. ***

Has anyone solicited sympathy for the individual in this case? If you want to say yes, quote somebody.

(Of course, I'm quite sure you won't answer this post at all. There's some civil discourse for you -- spew your ugly opinions into the public space, and then refuse to answer the responses to them. Stinkorama. You're basically a human manure spreader.)



I have no idea whose sensitive soul was offended by what in that. But if somebody wants to claim that comparing someone to a piece of farm equipment is a violation of the rules here ... be my guest.

But if somebody insists, I'll change it to "spreader of shit around this forum". And don't anybody try to tell me they would alert on that if it were said to me.

Nor, I believe, am I required to stifle my lack of sympathy for any other member of DU.

search of this site for the expression I have no sympathy for you
About 7,280 results -- undoubtedly many duplicates

[one-eyed fat man]

79. Glad to have raised so much bile and vituperation.

To me, armed robbers are of no particular value to society. If there is some danger in economic collapse if we had to lay off all the police trying to catch them, lawyers trying to prosecute or defend them and jailers to watch over them if criminals suddenly disappeared from the planet, I'd be willing to risk it.

Whatever else, it is certain, that guy has absolutely and positively committed his last robbery. He started the sequence of events when he attempted to rob the place. The way I see it, he was forced to eat the dish he was prepared to serve.

Nothing more, nothing less.

[friendly_iconoclast]

113. You certain offended those who style themselves your better

I've noticed that there's only one thing that exercises a wowser more than opposing them: Acting as if they are irrelevant...

[Marengo]

26. Who is a "Bunch of fucking teabaggers."?

By the way, have you found time in your busy schedule to apologize for falsely claiming a poster quoted Ron Paul to support his position?

[Starboard Tack]

Those who support the proliferation of handguns. Barbaric.

[Marengo]

51. Then you had best edit your post if possible

Sure seems to me you were calling ileus, at the very least, a teabagger. You are aware that such a thing is a violation of the code of conduct here, correct?

Hmmmm...it seems you ignored my second question. Why is that?

[iverglas]

56. you still have time to edit yours

If you want to accuse someone of violating the rules of this board, you'd best direct your comments to the management.

[Marengo]

62. Nah, I'll leave it as it stands.

As it isn't an accusation, but rather a statement of fact. But thanks anyway. I'm honored, I really am. :eyes:

[Name removed]

61. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Marengo]

64. For someone who claims advanced intelligence...

Your inability to observe simple rules is quite puzzling.

"Everyone gets the benefit of doubt until they fail and fall into the category of incorrigible stupidity."..."Both you and Ileus fall into that esteemed category."

Sorry, but..."Do not post personal attacks or engage in name-calling against other individual members of this discussion board. Even very mild personal attacks are forbidden."

Would you like to attempt to deny that "incorrigible stupidity" is not an insult?

"I didn't accuse any individual of being a teabagger

Yes, you did.


"You said it. Shame on you, the gun maker and the rest of you who support
the proliferation of these killing toys you all seem to love so much.
Gotta keep that scorecard at 30,000 a year. Great form of population control.
Bunch of fucking teabaggers."

[Starboard Tack]

66. If the shoe fits, then it isn't an insult. Otherwise, it's just a characterization..

If I offended you, I'm sorry. I wanted to point out the values you share with the Tea Party. I get carried away from time to time. Can't imagine why.

[Marengo]

108. Does the "shoe fit" in your opinion?

Once more around the Maypole with you.

1. "I apologize If I offended you" is NOT a genuine apology. A genuine apology is taking responsibility for offering insult. You have not done this, instead by adding the modifier "If I offended you", you are implying that you have done nothing wrong.

2. "Bunch of fucking teabaggers" is not pointing out shared values. This statement, in the form that you wrote it, implies full membership, not comparison.

[Starboard Tack]

109. Your arrogance is astounding.

"I apologize If I offended you" is not a genuine quote.
I am not sorry if I offended you. I thought you were genuinely hurt by something I may have said and took pity on you. Well, you'll just have to get over it. If you want to stop feeling like a teabagger, then stop acting like one. I don't know if you have full membership, or not.

[Marengo]

111. No, it's your lack of integrity that is astounding.

Ah, so you never intended to offer a genuine apology? Interesting, and I ask why not? Your statement was not only a blatant violation of the rules of conduct, but a vicious logical fallacy. You must be aware of this. As I've said to you before, simply because one may share a similar position with another individual/party etc.,DOES NOT imply support of, identification with, or membership in the other.

"I apologize If I offended you" is not a genuine quote.

Nor was it intended to be. It is a typology identifier.

I don't know if you have full membership, or not

If that is the case, why would you infer such a thing?

"If you want to stop feeling like a teabagger, then stop acting like one.

I have never felt such a thing, not having fallen into an anti-intellectual trap as you have.

Oh well, if you can't beat 'em...If you want to stop feeling like a Paulista, stop acting like one.

[iverglas]

118. you have one little problem here

You are asking someone to apologize for making a statement of fact.

It is against the rules to make certain statements of fact at this website -- for instance, it may be proved beyond a shadow of a doubt that someone is a liar, having wilfully told a lie, but that is a fact that may not speak its name here.

So even if the statement of fact was false ... well, as the rules say, you are welcome to refute it.

But there is absolutely no rule here that someone must apologize for breaking a rule.

Since the post in issue was deleted, one may infer that a decision was made that it broke a rule. (Note that one may not infer that it broke a rule, only that a decision was made that it did.)

That is the remedy for anyone who feels aggrieved by rule violations here: seek deletion of the, uh, offending post.

There is no entitlement to an apology for a rule violation.

So you really oughta give this up as a bad job.

Hell, if I could demand apologies for all the lies told about me in a decade ... and if I had a penny for every one I got ... I could cover DU's operating budget for the next year single-handedly.

If I had $1000 for every time such a lie was retracted ... I'd be broke.

Not that there's any lie in issue here. I'm just saying.

By the way, you might find it instructive to observe the proper use of the verb "infer" in this post.

[Marengo]

125. You can, I suppose, provided proof for this fact?

You have access to the membership rolls of the Tea Party? Can you provide a quote from the poster in question that he is a member of the Tea Party?

Show us what you have to establish this "fact".

But there is absolutely no rule here that someone must apologize for breaking a rule.

Nor have I suggested that there is a rule requiring an apology. Such a thing is, however, generally considered a mature and respectful action after issuing a falsehood, mis-characterization, or insult.

IF one wishes to be regarded seriously, that is.

Being such a fierce advocate of civil discourse, I'm certain you agree.

"By the way, you might find it instructive to observe the proper use of the verb "infer" in this post."

And you may find instructive that English is not my first language.

[iverglas]

134. if you were a dog, that bone just wouldn't have a chance, would it?

:eyes:


And you may find instructive that English is not my first language.

Nah. The use of "infer" to mean "imply" is a peculiarly English-speaker error, not something deriving from a mistake such as, oh, saying "assist" to mean assister, as francophones do in English, or attendre to mean "attend", as anglophones do in French ... so you're in the same boat as everybody else on this one. Just bad English.

[Marengo]

138. Are you suggesting that ONLY native speakers...

are capable of making such an error, or that non-native speakers cannot make such an error?

If you answer no, then a retraction is in order. If yes, I look forward to your proof.

Anyway, yes, my English is bad, but not for a lack of intelligence. But, as linguistic bigotry is prevalent in all facets of society, it has certainly been assumed so. Even by those who identify themselves a progressive or liberal. Oddly enough, they can be just as vicious than the "you don't speak no good English" cretin. As someone who has struggled to understand and communicate in the language, very different from my mother tongue, I am particularly attuned to linguistic bigotry.

Your posts reek of it, and the stench of this form of bigotry emerges in HOW you phrase your "suggestions".

[iverglas]

142. you've picked the wrong mark here, bub

The multilingual one, the one who works in two languages in which I am fluently bilingual, the one whose ear is finely attuned to the faux amis and such (such as I referred to earlier) and to the efforts made by a non-native speaker, and who goes to whatever effort is needed to understand and if necessary explain, and who is infinitely tolerant of mistakes (oh, okay, unless it's Canadian politicians speaking the garble of jargonese where French vocabulary is imported into English via meaningless translations, like how they are working on "the environment file", but I place the blame for that on the native English speakers themselves).

I live and évolue (just no good English word for that bit of jargonese) in a bilingual state/society. My work is deeply intertwined with that fact: Canada is not just officially bilingual, but also bicultural (if you don't count the First Nations and later multicultural developments) and officially bijural (another ick word in English): two legal systems, with both of which I am intimately familiar, deriving from English common law and French civil law.

I'm committed to language rights and equality; they are in my constitution. If I were a language bigot, I'd be out of work. And I'd have had to find a new party; mine has just made a breakthrough in Quebec such as will, it is hoped, change the face of Canadian politics permanently, in significant part because of our commitment to all these things. Sadly, our party leader, the Leader of the Official Opposition who barely got to play that part in Parliament, died yesterday, and it will be a challenge to maintain the support that his personal integrity, not to mention his fluent French, attracted there.

So - if English is not your first language / mother tongue, you quite undoubtedly picked up the infer/imply error from English speakers (edit -- it runs rampant in this forum and all over this site, and the internet, and anywhere someone is being pretentious and isn't up to the job), or perhaps from an anglophone instructor not clear on the concepts. It is not an error that anyone whose native language was anything else would invent for themself. For example, an online resource I sometimes use offers this:

infer
1. (deduce) inférer fml, déduire;
2. usage critiqué (imply) suggérer.
(this means that the use of the verb "infer" to mean "imply", translated as suggérer, is a usage that is criticized ... which would be because it is incorrect ... but the dictionary offers that meaning of "infer" and a French equivalent to assist French speakers seeking the meaning of the word in a context where it has been misused)

The error does not exist in French:

inférer v deduce
inférer v infer
(no "imply" meaning there, so no one would translate "imply" in their head as inférer or inférer as "imply")

And then we have:

imply
1. (person) (insinuate) insinuer (that que);
. (make known) laisser entendre (that que);
2. (argument) (mean) impliquer;
3. (term, word) (mean) laisser supposer (that que).

The obvious one missing there is sousentendre. A francophone would be thinking sousentendre and it would not occur to them to say "infer" for that, since no dictionary on earth would offer it, and since there isn't the slightest confusion between that word and inférer in French. If a francophone made the error, it would come from observing/copying anglophone usage. Just to take French as an example. If you can offer another language where the confusion would arise in the original and be carried over to English, lemme know.


Now as far as this statement of fact: you are aware that it was deleted from the forum, of course. As I was explaining, this does not mean it was not true, it merely means that it was decided that it violated a rule and that decision governs.

To incite me to break the rules doubly -- by posting something that it might be against the rules to post, when I am on notice that it has been decided that it violates a rule -- well, I'm sure that isn't something you're wanting to do. ;)

[Marengo]

145. Well, peace then...

I retract my accusation of linguistic bigotry. However, I will tell you that your tone is supremely condescending, which can lead the reader to all manners of unsavory conclusions regarding your character and the purpose of your dialog.

In regard to my usage of infer, I'm am left somewhat confused. It am presently told by another who I trust on these matters that infer is correct in the context in which I used it, as in asking how he arrived at that conclusion with the evidence at hand. To infer as in deduce.

I beginning to think I should avoid the word altogether and find a replacement.

"To incite me to break the rules doubly -- by posting something that it might be against the rules to post, when I am on notice that it has been decided that it violates a rule -- well, I'm sure that isn't something you're wanting to do.

Interpret it how you wish, all I desire is clarity. In my opinion, there is far too much mealiness on this discussion board, if that is an acceptable term. Perhaps created by the rules of conduct themselves.

[Marengo]

139. I ask again, what is this "fact" you speak of? N/T

[iverglas]

143. see 142

[iverglas]

75. hahahaha

Would you like to attempt to deny that "incorrigible stupidity" is not an insult?

Would you like to deny that this makes no earthly sense?

:rofl:

Sometimes, Q just is D.

[Marengo]

107. Yep, thanks to the wayward "not" I didn't catch, it doesn't

However, someone of your self-professed intelligence should be able to understand the point. Why don't we try this? Rather than focusing on a grammatical error, a cheap diversionary method as I'm sure you'll agree, perhaps you would like to answer a rephrased version of the original question. Is it, or is it not, insulting to refer to someone as incorrigibly stupid?

[iverglas]

119. oh, mea maxima culpa

... "not".

Rather than focusing on a grammatical error, a cheap diversionary method as I'm sure you'll agree, perhaps you would like to answer a rephrased version of the original question.

Or not.

I'll go with "not".

I was amused by the question as it was phrased. I'm not actually interested in the static.

[Marengo]

126. How terribly sad...

This was an excellent opportunity for you to denounce behaviour which you so often bitterly complain is directed towards you. I guess insults and lies are okay so long as they are directed towards people whose positions you oppose.

[iverglas]

130. you guess wrong!

I guess insults and lies are okay so long as they are directed towards people whose positions you oppose.

Bzzzzt.

Did ya notice how they drop like flies?

Check downthread.

[Marengo]

131. No, I don't think so.

You've offered no proof of otherwise in the debate between Starboard Tack and I.

Now, if you were to denounce his insult...

I'll wait.

[Marengo]

132. I ask you, what was this "statement of fact" you refer to?

I'm interested in the proof as well.

[iverglas]

135. I ask *you*: what is this "statement of fact" *you* refer to?

Or am I supposed to search around the thread looking for it?

Lemme tell you about facts hereabouts. They're like the weather. Wait a while, and they change.

As evidenced by the posts downthread to which I referred.

Had anybody called the posters in question (ProDem4 and Philippine expat) teabaggers 24 hours ago, the posts would have been deleted.

And yet I can do it now with impunity!

How are you liking the weather? No? Well, give it some time, it will change.

[Marengo]

141. Post 118, of which you are the author. N/T

[iverglas]

144. see 142

and really, give it up.

[ProgressiveProfessor]

28. You do realize he was shot by a retired LEO

As for the rest of your personal attacks...what about civil discourse?

[iverglas]

30. why is this supposed to matter?

Who cares whom he was shot by?

As for the rest of your noise ... whenever you choose to engage in civil discourse, I'm sure someone will notice.

[SteveM]

48. Your's is a Sears Roebuck catalog of uncivility. nt

[ProgressiveProfessor]

69. Beacuse many who oppose gun rights say that only LEOs should have weapons

Here is a case where a retired LEO, not a civilian stopped, an armed robbery in progress. It should be supported by the gun grabbers...yet you and your sycophants are still having hissy fits.

[Name removed]

78. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Starboard Tack]

33. Then double shame on him. Should've known better.

What personal attacks? Feel free to alert if you see any.

[spin]

36. We do not have all the details ...

it is quite possible that the retired officer drew his weapon and gave the robber a chance to surrender. The kid decided to shoot it out, which proved to be a mistake.

I remember that we had a police officer rooming with us a couple of years ago who had worked for the Florida DOT in Tampa. He had once walked into a store while off duty and in plain clothes. An individual was attempting to rob the store. He surrendered without a fight when the off duty officer drew his weapon.

[iverglas]

38. Gosh ... hey, GKirk, look here

Someone who thinks the actual facts might be relevant to anyone wishing to form and express an opinion.

We do not have all the details ...
it is quite possible that the retired officer drew his weapon and gave the robber a chance to surrender. The kid decided to shoot it out, which proved to be a mistake.

Just to be completely hypothetical, as spin has been here, it is also possible that the customer shouted at the kid to stop as he was leaving, the kid didn't, the customer shot at him, the kid turned and shot back and missed, and the customer shot him.

Many things are possible. I prefer to know what was actual, myself.

[spin]

39. It is possible that we will learn more details in a couple of days ...

then we can have a better discussion.

[Starboard Tack]

40. Good point.

[spin]

41. He was a retired LEO ...

undoubtedly with a background that included a lot of training. Perhaps he had reason to believe that the robber did indeed endanger the lives of those in the McDonalds.

Let's wait for updates on the story.

[ProgressiveProfessor]

68. He indeed knew better...

As a LEO his assessment was that lethal force was required. No shame at all.

I prefer to leave the personal attacks in place. Makes the poster look asinine and shows their complete lack of civility, let alone civil discourse.

[rl6214]

123. So now you are calling Ileus and the rest of the gun owners

"teabaggers"? Classy starboard tack, classy.

You said it. Shame on you, the gun maker and the rest of you who support
Posted by Starboard Tack
the proliferation of these killing toys you all seem to love so much.
Gotta keep that scorecard at 30,000 a year. Great form of population control.
Bunch of fucking teabaggers.

[gravity556]

54. I hate to cast aspersions, but if he's 16

then the gun is probably stolen. Though I'm sure that the dead armed robber didn't steal it himself-after all, his family said he was a good kid. Obviously it's a conspiracy-the cop shot the kid for no reason, planted a gun on him, then got everyone in the store to tell the same story, and he managed to accomplish all that in 3-5 minutes.

Or, and this is just Occam's Razor here, the kid managed to hide his ongoing misdeeds from his folks, got in with a bad crowd, participated in a robbery and found a gun (or, just as likely, bought/traded contraband for it), then decided, for what reason, we'll likely never know, to rob a McDonalds, pointing his firearm-his illegally acquired, illegally owned and illegally carried firearm at customers and staff alike.

Unfortunately for this particularly stupid individual, he also had the misfortune to pick a store where someone had not only the desire to defend himself, but the means with which to do so as well.

Now, going by the story, the savior in the store wasn't some random schlub with a pistol and, (just for you, i iverglas) bloodlust in his wizened and blackened heart. No, the hero of the story was a cop. Tasked with enforcing the laws of the land for at least 20 years. Carrying a gun daily. And didn't turn him into some crazed killer. Instead he decided that the dangerous felon pointing a gun at everyone was liable to end up killing someone. So he drew, stood his ground and stopped the threat. He (the hero of the story-AKA-the good guyd)stopped a robbery in progress, placing himself physically, not just figuratively between a criminal and a bunch of innocents.

The individual at fault in this is the asshole who decided to use force to terrorize people into complying with his directions. Don't try to rob people, because you have no idea if there's one person among your victims that is armed and trained, waiting for your guard to drop for an instant-just long enough to get a shot or two off.

He should be congratulated, not villified.

[iverglas]

58. ah, more tall tales and tea-leaf reading

... he also had the misfortune to pick a store where someone had not only the desire to defend himself, but the means with which to do so as well.

You are apparently privy to some inside information. You do have a duty to share it if you are going to rely on it in making your argument.

Let us know what the customer with the firearm was defending himself against, 'k?


No, the hero of the story was a cop. Tasked with enforcing the laws of the land for at least 20 years. Carrying a gun daily.

Yes ... and ... so ...?

I suspect you're aware of the endless tales of (alleged) cop misconduct with which we are regaled in this place. Do you know something about this particular cop?

I don't. Which is why you'll notice I haven't been talking about this incident as if I did.


He should be congratulated, not villified.

You know, sometimes one of those tests before voting doesn't seem like such a bad idea.

Give some people two or three little bits of unverified info about something, and you can lead them to a firm and fast conclusion lickety-split, as long as you know what their bias is before you start.

Hey, kinda like what that NRA-ILA outfit does ...

[gravity556]

59. So if you've not got the data to posit an opinion

one way or the other, why post at all? Unless you like being contrarian a little much and the reaction to your contraianism a whole bunch.

So, let's pretend, for a moment, that you've got a tiny imagination. What do you think happened? Did all the witnesses hallucinate? Seriously. I'm curious.

[iverglas]

70. sometimes, the fact-less opinins just cry out for comment

Sorry. I'm not going to "imagine" what happened. If and when somebody knows, I'm sure they'll tell us.

[ProgressiveProfessor]

81. Yet when we make such comments to your fact less posts, it upsets you horribly

However, we will persevere...

[Name removed]

71. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[ileus]

60. Well said excellent post....as always.

[DU GrovelBot]

32. ## PLEASE DONATE TO DEMOCRATIC UNDERGROUND! ##

This week is our third quarter 2011 fund drive. Democratic Underground is
a completely independent website. We depend on donations from our members
to cover our costs. Please take a moment to donate! Thank you!

Click here to donate

[GreenStormCloud]

77. The citizen appears to have confronted the robber before the shooting started.

http://www.mlive.com/news/detroit/index.ssf/2011/08/retired_detroit_police_officer.html

The retired officer confronted the gunman. There was a shootout inside the McDonald's. Several shots were fired. The gunman was killed by the retired officer.

By confronting the thug instead of taking him down immediately he gave the thug opportunity to spray bullets around McDonald's. Other people were put in extreme danger and could have been killed or badly injured.

[iverglas]

80. there appears to have been no shooting before the individual confronted the robber

There have been multiple armed robberies of McDonalds restaurants (and other similar sites) in the last week in the US alone. No shooting has occurred in any that I read about, and no one has been killed.

If the customer with the gun had not confronted the robber, would there have been any shooting and would anyone have been killed?

No one knows. Not me, not you, not anyone. But the odds are on my side if I suggest that there would have been no shooting and no one would have been killed.

You say:

By confronting the thug instead of taking him down immediately he gave the thug opportunity to spray bullets around McDonald's. Other people were put in extreme danger and could have been killed or badly injured.

And I can say with equal force that if no one had confronted the robber with a firearm, there would have been no shooting at all and no one would have been injured or killed.

And, particularly since you can offer no guarantee at all that had the customer shot first he would have "taken down" the robber, my hindsight simply looks better than yours.

But I wasn't there and the facts available (and likely to be available) are still too slim for me to be betting on what the time machine would show.

[Kennah]

90. That's your opinion, but it doesn't square with reality.

As an ex-cop he's more likely than most to have encountered dangerous situations and be well prepared to shoot only when necessary to protect innocent life.

[Name removed]

110. Deleted message

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[gravity556]

116. Who's reading tea leaves again?

"And I can say with equal force that if no one had confronted the robber with a firearm, there would have been no shooting at all and no one would have been injured or killed.


You're 100% certain that an individual with the propensity for violence that lead him to rob a fucking fast food joint wouldn't have hurt a fly? The cop did what he was trained to do, the crook did whatever the fuck he felt like doing-whatddya know, training > impulsiveness.

I know, I know, that kid was due to cure cancer just as soon as he got done robbing the McDonalds for his research grant. But then that big mean anti-criminal safety guy stepped in and kept humanity's future savior from shooting some random person enjoying his Big Mac. Insensitive prick!

I've said it before and I'll say it again-the best way to NOT get shot by a citizen packing a sidearm, either openly or concealed is to NOT try and steal shit, and particularly don't try to steal shit by waving a gun around, pointing it at people. Also, don't attack a single person as a group. Sure, it makes good youtube vids to share with your buddies, but quite a few states have disparity of force on the list of "Legal reasons to Chlorinate the Gene Pool". 4 or 5 guys beating the fuck out of a single individual is disparity of force-that means that the individual getting beaten is in the green for shooting as is anyone around who gives enough of a fuck to save his life. Don't even have to fire a warning shot or yell "Hey, stop that or I'll shoot". Dial 911, state your location, tell them what's going on and inform them that you're afraid that he's going to be killed. Put your phone on speaker and leave it in your pocket, that way afterwards, nobody can say "Dude just ran up calling us all names and then opened fire! We were just standing on the corner, minding our own business...."

The worst outcome of this incident is if the retired cop gets sued by the dead shithead's family. Good thing that fast food places have good surveillance systems.

[iverglas]

121. if you are, you're doing a fuck of a bad job of it

Oh, dear ... is it reading comprehension or integrity that is lacking?

The perennial question.

You're 100% certain that an individual with the propensity for violence that lead him to rob a fucking fast food joint wouldn't have hurt a fly?

Now, we'll ignore the disingenuous misplaced question mark at the end, and see that you have made a false statement for which you have no basis.

Because here's what I actually said, replacing the portion and the emphasis you oh so cleverly excised:

You say:

By confronting the thug instead of taking him down immediately he gave the thug opportunity to spray bullets around McDonald's. Other people were put in extreme danger and could have been killed or badly injured.

And I can say with equal force that if no one had confronted the robber with a firearm, there would have been no shooting at all and no one would have been injured or killed.

So what was my point here?

Well, it's obvious to anyone who can read, and it will be acknowledged by anyone with integrity.

The statement I was replying to made a purely speculative statement / drew a purely speculative conclusion from incomplete and insufficient facts -- a statement that was of no persuasive value at all because it was based on thin air and was pure speculation.

I made an equivalent statement: I can say something equally unfounded that is of equal persuasive value. None.

So take your misreading/misrepresentation of what I said, find that gun barrel, and see how it fits.

[friendly_iconoclast]

127. In certain quarters, robbers with handguns pointed at people are not dangerous...

...but non-robbers with holstered handguns are. Go figure...

[iverglas]

136. in certain quarters, making shit up and pretending somebody else said it

is evidently de rigueur.

[ileus]

106. poor innocent kid, he only wanted to rob and point a gun at people.

he may not have shot anyone...

[Name removed]

112. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[ileus]

115. you can't say that on TV...

[iverglas]

122. allow me to say, before your post is deleted and your account terminated

ProDem4 (35 posts)
Sun Aug-21-11 01:45 PM
Response to Reply #106
112. The Bottom line is

Armed robberies stats in that neighborhood will go down for two reasons.

One paticular robber is dead.

and other potential robbers will say "damn it aint safe for a nigga to jack people no mo, lets go find some DU'ers that don't believe in guns and rob them".


This was a good day in a city that does'nt have very many good days.

that you are a racist piece of shit, among undoubtedly other putrid things.

I'm surprised that your post, which I seem to have missed yesterday, is still here. I mean, loads of people must have alerted on it very quickly.

How does that go? Oh yeah ... :sarcasm:

[AtheistCrusader]

124. No pizza for the other poster I alerted on today.

Unfortunate, as I find his posts annoying. The whole incident quietly swept under the 'delete thread' button.

[iverglas]

128. delivered!

Check the thread in question. ;)

[AtheistCrusader]

137. The one posting noxious racism that I was after

lives still. No pizza. No evidence remains.

:(

[iverglas]

140. hm

It may be time to ask an admin, eh? My mind's blank on this one I fear.

[iverglas]

129. and here, just to confirm

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=user_profiles&u_id=273517