A half-naked fat, old, white grumpy guy was caught on video having a shooting incident over a moped.
No one appears to have been hurt; the honor of owning a moped was upheld!
On the other hand........why do none of the people who are calling this old fool with a gun a hero question the risk to others of shooting six shots down what is presumably an inhabited residential city street?
This shooting appears to endanger others, while apparently not harming the would-be criminal. No one in their right mind should call this guy a hero; he was dangerously stupid.
1. No one should be carrying a gun in their pants pocket.
It is dangerous.
The old geezer is lucky he didn't shoot himself in the leg when he fell on his ass. Clearly, you can't use it if you need it - but the odds are you can't get it out of a holster quickly enough to be practically useful EITHER. But it makes it less likely you will accidentally shoot yourself or someone else if you use one.
2. No one acting intelligently while armed with a deadly weapon tries to pull their gun on someone when that person is already pointing a gun at them. You have already lost any possible advantage of shooting first; you will however dramatically increase the probability of getting shot yourself before you can fire. Even if you both fire your guns, you are going to be endangering others besides the bad guy. It does not appear any of the shots fired by this fat old white crabby guy hit the person he aimed at --- where did they go?
This guy was a dumbass to keep arguing with someone who pulled a gun on them.
3. Clearly, having a gun you can't get out of your pocket and that the would-be criminal doesn't know is there is NO DETERRENT to a crime. There is nothing heroic about shooting someone in the back, there is nothing heroic in shooting at someone after they have left. This guy is stupid and inept, not heroic.
Under normal laws applying to law enforcement, they are not allowed to shoot a suspect in the back, a suspect who is fleeing, if it endangers others. They are not allowed to shoot a suspect who is NOT a danger to others - and when this bad guy, a black guy in a hoodie!, left the scene, I would argue that he no longer presented an imminent danger to the mo-ped owner or anyone else.
He should have been reported to the police, but the fat old white grumpy guy shouldn't be shooting someone fleeing a failed crime scene. This is one more instance of a grump with a gun going vigilante on someone; no moped is worth shooting someone over. It's just a dumb MOPED for Pete's sake! No crook is going to outrun the cops on a silly old moped! (He probably couldn't outrun cops on ten speeds.)
Stop shooting and put on a shirt, PLEASE. You're not only endangering your neighborhood, you're uglifying it. Use better judgement, and please - better taste. You call the cops; we won't call the fashion police on you.
No one appears to have been hurt; the honor of owning a moped was upheld!
On the other hand........why do none of the people who are calling this old fool with a gun a hero question the risk to others of shooting six shots down what is presumably an inhabited residential city street?
This shooting appears to endanger others, while apparently not harming the would-be criminal. No one in their right mind should call this guy a hero; he was dangerously stupid.
1. No one should be carrying a gun in their pants pocket.
It is dangerous.
The old geezer is lucky he didn't shoot himself in the leg when he fell on his ass. Clearly, you can't use it if you need it - but the odds are you can't get it out of a holster quickly enough to be practically useful EITHER. But it makes it less likely you will accidentally shoot yourself or someone else if you use one.
2. No one acting intelligently while armed with a deadly weapon tries to pull their gun on someone when that person is already pointing a gun at them. You have already lost any possible advantage of shooting first; you will however dramatically increase the probability of getting shot yourself before you can fire. Even if you both fire your guns, you are going to be endangering others besides the bad guy. It does not appear any of the shots fired by this fat old white crabby guy hit the person he aimed at --- where did they go?
This guy was a dumbass to keep arguing with someone who pulled a gun on them.
3. Clearly, having a gun you can't get out of your pocket and that the would-be criminal doesn't know is there is NO DETERRENT to a crime. There is nothing heroic about shooting someone in the back, there is nothing heroic in shooting at someone after they have left. This guy is stupid and inept, not heroic.
Under normal laws applying to law enforcement, they are not allowed to shoot a suspect in the back, a suspect who is fleeing, if it endangers others. They are not allowed to shoot a suspect who is NOT a danger to others - and when this bad guy, a black guy in a hoodie!, left the scene, I would argue that he no longer presented an imminent danger to the mo-ped owner or anyone else.
He should have been reported to the police, but the fat old white grumpy guy shouldn't be shooting someone fleeing a failed crime scene. This is one more instance of a grump with a gun going vigilante on someone; no moped is worth shooting someone over. It's just a dumb MOPED for Pete's sake! No crook is going to outrun the cops on a silly old moped! (He probably couldn't outrun cops on ten speeds.)
Stop shooting and put on a shirt, PLEASE. You're not only endangering your neighborhood, you're uglifying it. Use better judgement, and please - better taste. You call the cops; we won't call the fashion police on you.
The white man may be a bit overweight, but he's not fat. But that's a small point. Consider the whole video. There was no sound and no context, so we're missing important imformation, but look at these points:
ReplyDelete1. Property owners have the right to protect their property. If your side would stop defending thieves and other thugs, people might listen to you.
2. The man without a shirt is probably doing actual work, instead of being a thug. He probably took off his shirt because he's raising a sweat while actually working. The fellow in the hoodie doesn't appear to be doing actual work.
3. The fellow in the hoodie walked by and then returned, but the two older men didn't pay him any attention until he started messing with the moped. That's a lack of situational awareness.
4. When the young fellow pulls a gun, he and the older man carry on a lengthy conversation. This makes no sense. The older man should have had his hand on his gun when he saw the younger one attempting to steal the moped. He should have been ready to draw and shoot.
5. Laci or Dog Gone or whoever the actual author is, you claim that no one can pull a gun from a holster quickly enough, but both Laci and Dog Gone have told us about times when they either carried a gun or considered carrying one for self defense. Apparently some are able to draw and use quickly enough to be effective.
6. In addition, the young man was able to draw and point in short order.
7. The other older man should have had his own gun and should have drawn and shot when he saw the young fellow pull a gun. That would have been a clear case of defending another innocent person, presuming the video is giving us an accurate impression of the event.
And then there are the ultra cool and hip
ReplyDeletehttp://gma.yahoo.com/pippa-middleton-caught-gun-wielding-scandal-114955360--abc-news-topstories.html
orlin sellers
Why is it when I see the Headline that says Old, White, and Crabby, I think I'm gonna be reading about Democommie?
ReplyDeleteorlin sellers
I left out another point: The author of this piece is apparently unaware of guns that are safe for carrying in a pocket. I have several whose triggers are heavy enough that they won't go off without a deliberate squeeze. I made a pocket holster out of some pieces of soft leather for them, but that's to protect the pocket from being torn up by the sights.
ReplyDeletePay attention people!!
ReplyDeleteThe white guy WAS SHOT!!
If I got shot and had a chance to shoot back at the sonofabitch that shot me I more than likely would.
No, the white guy did not get shot. It does not appear from the report that anyone who was shot at was hit. Innocent bystanders however are not accounted for in the report.
DeleteI think for the rhyming value,I will continue the series with old and white, flabby and crabby. No one is going to accuse any of these NRA types - or those gun nuts who post here for the most part - of being fit, lean and muscular.
There is a 3rd armed while old and white, flabby and crabby. I'm sure either democommie or Laci will post it for your enjoyment.......and to admire your mirror image in action.
And Mikeb will allow your racist and bigoted remarks to appear on this site? Referring to a person's race and weight is widely regarded as inappropriate, unless said person is a white gun owner, it seems.
DeletePenigma -
ReplyDeleteThere is a serious issue with this post and since this man was shot and you say no one was hurt. What you write in this piece has no credibility and I think you should take this post down.
This comes from someone who agrees with this site and what is posted and link to it as well.
The blog is Penigma, this author is not; Pen (for short) is my co-blogger.
DeleteWhoever it may be needs to take this down.
Delete"The white man may be a bit overweight, but he's not fat."
ReplyDeleteBoth of the white men have a shape like mine, probably have a BMI of something north of 30 and ARE fat, just not morbidly obese.
"Property owners have the right to protect their property."
Oh, so you've spoken to the man and know that it is HIS moped?
"If your side would stop defending thieves and other thugs, people might listen to you."
Another instance of you repeating the same, tired fucking LIE that you've been peddling for months. After someone told you that they weren't "defending thieves and other thugs" and you repeat your assertion, it becomes a--a LIE, a deliberate falsehood. You're welcome to continue to impeach your own credibility, we're welcome to ridicule your transparent and pathetic attemps to defend your LYING.
"The man without a shirt is probably doing actual work, instead of being a thug. He probably took off his shirt because he's raising a sweat while actually working. The fellow in the hoodie doesn't appear to be doing actual work."
No facts in evidence to support any of your comment's claims.
"When the young fellow pulls a gun, he and the older man carry on a lengthy conversation. This makes no sense. The older man should have had his hand on his gun when he saw the younger one attempting to steal the moped. He should have been ready to draw and shoot."
And you've actually had someone wave a gun in your face, whipped out your penis substitute and blew that hoodieperp straight to hell?
"Laci or Dog Gone or whoever the actual author is, you claim that no one can pull a gun from a holster quickly enough, but both Laci and Dog Gone have told us about times when they either carried a gun or considered carrying one for self defense. Apparently some are able to draw and use quickly enough to be effective."
And Laci or dog gone have told us that they actually tried to draw against someone already aiming a weapon at them? If so, I'm sure you'll furnish the quote from the post/comment where they stated such a thing had happened.
"In addition, the young man was able to draw and point in short order.
At about 20 seconds into the video, the hoodiedperp gets on the Moped with teh gun ALREADY in his hand. He didn't draw if AFTER the idiot approached him.
"The other older man should have had his own gun and should have drawn and shot when he saw the young fellow pull a gun."
The other older man, the one with the shirt on? He should've shot the guy who wasn't on his property, wasn't stealing his Moped? That guy?
"That would have been a clear case of defending another innocent person, presuming the video is giving us an accurate impression of the event."
And you know that because you know the shirtless guy OWNED the Moped and was on his own property? You presume a lot of shit. Go ahead and run it down, find out what actually transpired and then compare it with the nonsense you presume happened.
"Why is it when I see the Headline that says Old, White, and Crabby, I think I'm gonna be reading about Democommie?
orlin sellers"
Because you're too dense to realize that if it's a post about an idiot wit teh gunz, it ain't about me? I don't know if it helps at all but you should know that I'm not really old, and while I am white, I'm really only crabby when I'm dealing with morons, assholes and liars. Does that clear things up for you?
"
Democommie is incapable of understanding how people can draw reasonable conclusions, both from evidence presented in a video and from repeated statements on a website. Let me help:
Delete1. I indicated that I was speaking about conclusions regarding this video. I acknowledged that we could be missing a lot of information.
2. My facts come from the video. We both can see what's available to be seen. We can draw conclusions from those facts.
3. But on the point about defending thieves and other thugs, look at the whining about the young fellow, but also the lack of concern for the older man who, as One Fly points out, appears to have been shot.
Democommie, you are proving Heinlein's point. The Internet is an unarmed society, and you are one of the rudest and most vulgar individuals that I know. In this virtual world, you're able to accuse me of lying without providing any proof that I've done so. I don't intend ever to allow your claims to go unchallenged.
Greg Camp:
ReplyDeleteIt's really a fairly simple equation. If you want to be treated like someone deserving of respect stop whining about being misunderstood after you deliberately lie about what people say and draw conclusions that are unsupported by anything. It's not a strong suit, that air of certainty that you project.
Heinlein? Is there a line of his that I'm supposed to call up from memory to support your contention? You don't like the way I talk to you? Then quit being so fucking lazy and arrogant. You make dozens of assertions every week on this blog and support none of them, as a rule. You then expect that I or any of the other posters here should take you at your word? Not gonna fucking happen.
Robert Heinlein: An armed society is a polite society. I figured that I provided enough context for an aware and intelligent person to know what I was talking about. Of course, I forgot that I was talking to you.
DeleteDo you understand the difference between facts and logic? I offer facts when that's what's required, and I give arguments, inferences, and conclusions when appropriate. I can't help it that you're unable to tell which is correct to use in the context, nor can I provide a citation for an argument. I'm not quoting someone else; I'm making my own case. If you said that you can't follow the reasoning, that would at least be relevant to the argument, but demanding "support" shows how little you comprehend the process.
Let's also note, Democommie, that you rarely offer any support for your rants. You comment on the comments of others or on the main article, and every so often, you write your own article, but you give little support. You have yet, for example, to show any lie that I've told here.
DeleteI used to know a guy who was a total expert about Ducati motorcycles. Never hesitated to talk about them, recommend which model to buy. Problem was he had never ridden a motorcycle and was pretty much full of it.
ReplyDeleteReminds me of the tone of the advice in this post.
Only Anonymous if you can find a 'total expert' on falling down while trying to pull a gun out of your pocket, or blatantly acting stupid while a gun is pointing at you.
DeleteOr some expert, of any kind that recommends shooting at a person on what appears to be a residential street, without hitting the person they are aiming at, and who does not appear to give any consideration to where the bullets are going.
What is wrong with the actions of the old white guy in this video are glaring. Only the willfully blind and ignorant would miss it.
While you're the expert in every subject that you care to address, of course. Well, from things that you wrote here before the comment policy was opened up, I do know that you're the professed expert in surrendering to thugs.
DeleteAre you people blind or fucking what?? Can just one person watch this fucking video and say - ya the white guy got shot and it's so easy to see.
ReplyDeleteWhat the fuck anyway.
The arguments for or against this have no meaning - none at all.
Because the man was shot what you are all saying is based on a scenario you think you see.
Like I said in my initial statement - "If I got shot and had a chance to shoot back at the sonofabitch that shot me I more than likely would."
Will you people please open your eyes and watch the video. You can see the recoil of the gun and the white guy drops like a rock. The shooter got him a partial knee capper.
And you gun lover fuckers are so smart you can't even recognize when someone takes one. I assume this was a 22 because if it was any bigger this guy wouldn't have gotten up. Plus he's limping around too and you're too fucking dumb to see that as well.
What is wrong with you people - seriously!
There is no doubt that the criminal shot the man in the leg. If the criminal was still armed and in sight of the victim, he was a threat and it was justifiable to shoot him ... regardless of whether his back or his front was facing the victim. (Note: an armed criminal with his back to you can turn and fire in less than a second.) And the active duty police officer that taught my concealed carry class covered this exact scenario. He said a person with a gun that shot at you is a threat no matter which way they are facing or how far away they are. (He claimed that he could repeatedly shoot a standard sheet of notebook paper at 100 yards with a snubnose revolver.)
ReplyDeleteAnd for all we know the criminal was 40 feet away and pointing his gun at the victim again.
As for the comments about a gun in a pocket, they are factually wrong. First of all I have a pocket holster for a small concealed pistol. The holster prevents anything from moving the trigger and it sticks to the material in my pocket. And yet the inside of the holster has slippery material. When I draw, the holster stays in and the pistol comes out. As for speed, I can have my hand on the grip of the pistol while it is still in my pocket without anyone realizing it. That means I can draw about as fast as I can pull my hand out of my pocket -- which is extremely fast. So there are no safety liabilities with pistol and holster.
The only area where I would be critical is that the victim stood around too long arguing. He should have had is hand already on his pistol (but still in his pocket/holster) when he confronted the criminal. Once the criminal started reaching, the man should have simultaneously drawn while moving to cover. He should have been able to draw faster than the criminal could have drawn because the criminal had to move his sweatshirt out of the way and then draw a pistol with a long barrel.
In my estimation, both are lucky in this case.
As for the property crime aspect, mopeds cost several hundreds if not thousands of dollars and insurance deductibles are several hundreds and sometimes even one thousand dollars. People are justified in using basic force to protect their property. If the criminal resists and escalates to the point of deadly force -- which happened in this case -- then the property owner is justified in using deadly force.
MikeB this is why gun control is losing ground. Everyday people understand what I just wrote. While they might not be able to type it coherently, they understand it and agree with it. "We the People" are sick and tired of criminals attacking us and stealing our stuff ... and we have had enough. Law enforcement and gun control policies had their turn and failed. Now "we the People" are handling it ourselves. We are not vigilantes, we are simply defending ourselves and our property. And we are beginning to respond with force when necessary and justified.
Not only do most people understand, most readers here understand your point. Amen, brother, and keep preaching!
DeleteCapn Crunch, Your theory described in that final paragraph sounds good but unfortunately in the real world it's too often misused or overused. That's why we have to bring the line back a bit instead of continuing to move it forward. All your sensible tough-talk about protecting property if fine, but it tends to overlook the much higher value of life, even a criminal's life.
DeleteMikeB I value all human life. That is why I was careful to state that a property owner can use force -- not deadly force -- to stop a criminal from stealing the property owner's property. The property owner is only justified to use deadly force if the criminal escalated their simple theft to a dangerous assault.
DeleteIt is imperative to the proper functioning of our society to seriously resist all criminal activity involving theft and violent attacks. Beyond the obvious disruption due to injury, loss of property, or loss of life, the criminal is also failing to add value to society. We need all the help we can get when it comes to adding value to society. But why should a criminal consider earning his keep (thus contributing to society) if he can steal whatever he wants without any repercussions?
That sounds better. I can't argue with that.
DeleteIf Capt'n hoddie had stayed the fuck home and not decided to redistribute the property belonging to someone else, he would not have got his theiving ass shot at.
ReplyDeleteAnd it is hilarious how the video camera did absolutely nothing to deter the Hoodmeister from his act of theft and violence.....
Why is that, Laci, why didn't the video camera deter the gun toting bad guy.....
1. No one should be carrying a gun in their pants pocket.
It is dangerous.
So where do you CC Laci, since you don't pocket concealed carry when out and about Philadelphia, are you an inside the waistband guy or a shoulder rig, Ankle Carrier maybe?
Inquiring minds would like to know....
Since you know how dangerous in the pocket carry is and all...
“Laws that forbid the carrying of arms disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes.
ReplyDeleteSuch laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants;
they serve to encourage rather than prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed man.”
— Thomas Jefferson
And more words from a Crabby white guy
ReplyDelete“The choice in this election is between an economy that produces a growing middle-class and that gives people a chance to get ahead and their kids a chance to get ahead and an economy that continues down the road we’re on.” David Axlerod
http://www.breitbart.com/Breitbart-TV/2012/04/15/Obama-Advisor-Axelrod-Tells-American-Voters-Not-Choose-The-Road-We-Are-On