|
|
ShowMyPro Forums > World News & Current Events > -Waukegan Illinois Clerk Blows Away Piece of Shit!!!
 -Waukegan Illinois Clerk Blows Away Piece of Shit!!!
|
|
|
Cheesy
Posts: 914
Rank: Standard |
| October 15th, 2008 at 10:02 PM |
 |
Originally posted by ghost1776
Originally posted by buckeyemedic09
Alright, gonna throw in my two cents and let you guys bitch about it.
First, I'd like to state that I'm in no way supportive of Johnny Militia, and I'm pretty sure he needs counselling. People that are overly aggressive about gun rights make those of us who casually own a firearm seem like backwoods dumbasses. I sincerely dislike this man.
That being said, how many of you honestly know how it feels to have a gun pointed at you? The way you view things changes immediately when you know that you life is literally hinged on whether this person moves his finger backward half an inch. You don't really think "Oh, this person has a family" or "How will his mother feel?" You do however quickly deduce that the only way to live is for them to either be disarmed or die. It's a shitty situation, but the fact is that you really just shouldn't rob someone at gunpoint... or actually ever put anyone at gunpoint. When I was 14 I lived next to a kid the shot his mother on accident because he was trying to scare her into giving him money. The same thing could have happened to the clerk.
Shooting a man in the back is entirely unethical, and the clerk should probably be tried for it. At that point the danger was over and he should have just called the cops. That was probably the result of fear, anger, and embarassment.
I don't think that the clerk should have to wait for the thief to shoot first to shoot back though. Self defense is called that for a reason, you're protecting yourself from an immediate danger... and having a gun in your face is pretty much as immediate as danger gets. I'm not exactly fond of waiting for the bad guy to start popping off rounds at me before I shoot, but then again in the military we follow escalation of force.
Still.... killing a guy running away on his bike? That's pretty fucking pathetic.
you are close but not close enough.
You're the leader of some nefarious N.R.A. cult, aren't you?
there was no guarantee that the crook wasn't coming back. you are not at the scene. you have no idea how it went down.
Nor were you fucknut...
the clerk didn't just casually walk out and shoot the degenerate. this is the heat of a robbery. he probably ran out to catch the punk, the punk may have drawn his weapon, or made a move for it. the clerk was probably trying to catch the thief fearing the moron was going to draw the weapon he just saw.
I use to make up situations as a kid, it's great you put your imagination to use, but why make a rebuttal on hearsay? Fucknut...
the clerk's life was in danger even when he shot the offender because the offender could have had an accomplice in the area. the clerk could have been shot by a fellow robber the moment he walked out of the store.
my finger points entirely at the robber. he brought this all on himself so to hell with him.
Fuck it, you're retarded... Fucknut... Also, stop trying to dismiss others opinions and retort to reiterating things you've previously said... Trust me, we all get you by now. Go take a Viagra and jerk one for me... Fucknut...
-- Did you see that?
No...
It's probably for the best...   
|
ghost1776
Posts: 962
Rank: Standard |
| October 15th, 2008 at 10:04 PM |
|
Originally posted by Google
Originally posted by Cheesy
Originally posted by Google
Personally, I think killing anyone who hasn't caused you bodily harm is wrong.
We have no idea why this guy did what he did. I can't say he could've had a good reason, but he might've felt he needed to do what he did to get by in life.
Actually, Stephen "buckeye" put it best. When you're put on the spot and have a gun in your face certain instances escape you and survival becomes key. Kind of like if you were to get into a fight, it's different to talk shit to your friends about it and actually confronting the person you're suppose to fight.
Its not survival instincts when you shoot someone who has their back turned, leaving you unharmed.
He obviously had plenty of time to shoot this clerk, and he didn't, which indicates he had absolutely no intention to.
Killing someone who is leaving you unharmed is reckless in the extreme, in my opinion.
I said it was my opinion. You really didn't need to comment on it 
oh yes it is. the clerk ran out after the crook no doubt fearing for his life. flight or fight response is great under such stress and people can do heroic acts without giving them a second thought because of the adrenaline rush.
the clerk had no idea if the robber was coming back or not. the clerk had no idea if he was going to die or not during the robbery. so with the adrenaline rush, he ran out to apprehend the offender. the offender may have reached for his weapon or not, but the clerk knew he was armed and dangerous so he fired killing the perpetrator.
-- "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed." -Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution |
Cheesy
Posts: 914
Rank: Standard |
| October 15th, 2008 at 10:05 PM |
|
Originally posted by Google
Originally posted by Cheesy
Originally posted by Google
Personally, I think killing anyone who hasn't caused you bodily harm is wrong.
We have no idea why this guy did what he did. I can't say he could've had a good reason, but he might've felt he needed to do what he did to get by in life.
Actually, Stephen "buckeye" put it best. When you're put on the spot and have a gun in your face certain instances escape you and survival becomes key. Kind of like if you were to get into a fight, it's different to talk shit to your friends about it and actually confronting the person you're suppose to fight.
Its not survival instincts when you shoot someone who has their back turned, leaving you unharmed.
He obviously had plenty of time to shoot this clerk, and he didn't, which indicates he had absolutely no intention to.
Killing someone who is leaving you unharmed is reckless in the extreme, in my opinion.
I said it was my opinion. You really didn't need to comment on it
Very true. I was more so referring to the actual moment of having the gun pointed in your face. The actions after that were more than likely unneeded, I'll agree with you there.
-- Did you see that?
No...
It's probably for the best... |
buckeyemedic09
Posts: 450
Rank: Junior |
| October 15th, 2008 at 10:07 PM |
|
Originally posted by ghost1776
Originally posted by buckeyemedic09
Alright, gonna throw in my two cents and let you guys bitch about it.
First, I'd like to state that I'm in no way supportive of Johnny Militia, and I'm pretty sure he needs counselling. People that are overly aggressive about gun rights make those of us who casually own a firearm seem like backwoods dumbasses. I sincerely dislike this man.
That being said, how many of you honestly know how it feels to have a gun pointed at you? The way you view things changes immediately when you know that you life is literally hinged on whether this person moves his finger backward half an inch. You don't really think "Oh, this person has a family" or "How will his mother feel?" You do however quickly deduce that the only way to live is for them to either be disarmed or die. It's a shitty situation, but the fact is that you really just shouldn't rob someone at gunpoint... or actually ever put anyone at gunpoint. When I was 14 I lived next to a kid the shot his mother on accident because he was trying to scare her into giving him money. The same thing could have happened to the clerk.
Shooting a man in the back is entirely unethical, and the clerk should probably be tried for it. At that point the danger was over and he should have just called the cops. That was probably the result of fear, anger, and embarassment.
I don't think that the clerk should have to wait for the thief to shoot first to shoot back though. Self defense is called that for a reason, you're protecting yourself from an immediate danger... and having a gun in your face is pretty much as immediate as danger gets. I'm not exactly fond of waiting for the bad guy to start popping off rounds at me before I shoot, but then again in the military we follow escalation of force.
Still.... killing a guy running away on his bike? That's pretty fucking pathetic.
you are close but not close enough.
there was no guarantee that the crook wasn't coming back. you are not at the scene. you have no idea how it went down.
the clerk didn't just casually walk out and shoot the degenerate. this is the heat of a robbery. he probably ran out to catch the punk, the punk may have drawn his weapon, or made a move for it. the clerk was probably trying to catch the thief fearing the moron was going to draw the weapon he just saw.
the clerk's life was in danger even when he shot the offender because the offender could have had an accomplice in the area. the clerk could have been shot by a fellow robber the moment he walked out of the store.
my finger points entirely at the robber. he brought this all on himself so to hell with him.
You want to talk about heat of the moment? Try finding out moments before you go on a raid that the guy your looking for is the same son of a bitch that killed TWO of your friends with a goddamn bomb. Then try to push through a building knowing he was inside minutes ago and not want to kill every motherfucker inside for hiding him. You can't let that kind of shit get to you. You have to know how to gather yourself and stay frosty, because otherwise you'll end up in jail for murder, which is what the clerk will be tried for, undoubtedly. Worried about him coming back? Worried about an accomplice? LOCK YOURSELF SOMEWHERE, hell, bring your gun! If he shows back up, you're free and clear to engage. Fuck man, I'm in an Infantry company and I don't see people revel so much in a pointless death.
-- We sleep peaceably in our beds at night only because rough men stand ready to do violence on our behalf- George Orwell. |
Google
Posts: 1239
Rank: Super |
| October 15th, 2008 at 10:08 PM |
|
Originally posted by ghost1776
Originally posted by Google
Originally posted by Cheesy
Originally posted by Google
Personally, I think killing anyone who hasn't caused you bodily harm is wrong.
We have no idea why this guy did what he did. I can't say he could've had a good reason, but he might've felt he needed to do what he did to get by in life.
Actually, Stephen "buckeye" put it best. When you're put on the spot and have a gun in your face certain instances escape you and survival becomes key. Kind of like if you were to get into a fight, it's different to talk shit to your friends about it and actually confronting the person you're suppose to fight.
Its not survival instincts when you shoot someone who has their back turned, leaving you unharmed.
He obviously had plenty of time to shoot this clerk, and he didn't, which indicates he had absolutely no intention to.
Killing someone who is leaving you unharmed is reckless in the extreme, in my opinion.
I said it was my opinion. You really didn't need to comment on it
oh yes it is. the clerk ran out after the crook no doubt fearing for his life. flight or fight response is great under such stress and people can do heroic acts without giving them a second thought because of the adrenaline rush.
the clerk had no idea if the robber was coming back or not. the clerk had no idea if he was going to die or not during the robbery. so with the adrenaline rush, he ran out to apprehend the offender. the offender may have reached for his weapon or not, but the clerk knew he was armed and dangerous so he fired killing the perpetrator.
Your points are completely unfounded.
How do you know the kid was still armed? You ASSUME that he reached for the weapon? He probably didn't even realise the clerk came outside, if he was riding a freaking bike, trying to get away.
Stop trying to rationalize your horrible words. Its not going to work, sir.
I won't say anything else to you, because I was taught to respect my elders, but you sure do push it.
|
ghost1776
Posts: 962
Rank: Standard |
| October 15th, 2008 at 10:13 PM |
|
Originally posted by Cheesy
you are close but not close enough.
You're the leader of some nefarious N.R.A. cult, aren't you?
there was no guarantee that the crook wasn't coming back. you are not at the scene. you have no idea how it went down.
Nor were you fucknut...
the clerk didn't just casually walk out and shoot the degenerate. this is the heat of a robbery. he probably ran out to catch the punk, the punk may have drawn his weapon, or made a move for it. the clerk was probably trying to catch the thief fearing the moron was going to draw the weapon he just saw.
I use to make up situations as a kid, it's great you put your imagination to use, but why make a rebuttal on hearsay? Fucknut...
the clerk's life was in danger even when he shot the offender because the offender could have had an accomplice in the area. the clerk could have been shot by a fellow robber the moment he walked out of the store.
my finger points entirely at the robber. he brought this all on himself so to hell with him.
Fuck it, you're retarded... Fucknut... Also, stop trying to dismiss others opinions and retort to reiterating things you've previously said... Trust me, we all get you by now. Go take a Viagra and jerk one for me... Fucknut...
the National Rifle Association is not a Cult. The NRA was established in the New York National Guard back in 1871 and has been teaching firearm safety and marksmanship ever since.
no i wasn't at the scene "fucnut." whatever that is.
this is why i lean with the clerk.
-the clerk had a lawful reason for being there.
-the clerk had the right under illinois law to be armed at his fixed place of business.
-the crook had no right to be carrying a gun with the intent to use it in an armed robbery.
-the crook threatened the life of the clerk
-the clerk had a right to defend his life.
-the clerk rid the street of a piece of shit.
period.
-- "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed." -Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution |
8675309
Posts: 482
Rank: Junior |
| October 15th, 2008 at 10:17 PM |
|
Originally posted by Google
Originally posted by ghost1776
Originally posted by Google
Originally posted by Cheesy
Originally posted by Google
Personally, I think killing anyone who hasn't caused you bodily harm is wrong.
We have no idea why this guy did what he did. I can't say he could've had a good reason, but he might've felt he needed to do what he did to get by in life.
Actually, Stephen "buckeye" put it best. When you're put on the spot and have a gun in your face certain instances escape you and survival becomes key. Kind of like if you were to get into a fight, it's different to talk shit to your friends about it and actually confronting the person you're suppose to fight.
Its not survival instincts when you shoot someone who has their back turned, leaving you unharmed.
He obviously had plenty of time to shoot this clerk, and he didn't, which indicates he had absolutely no intention to.
Killing someone who is leaving you unharmed is reckless in the extreme, in my opinion.
I said it was my opinion. You really didn't need to comment on it
oh yes it is. the clerk ran out after the crook no doubt fearing for his life. flight or fight response is great under such stress and people can do heroic acts without giving them a second thought because of the adrenaline rush.
the clerk had no idea if the robber was coming back or not. the clerk had no idea if he was going to die or not during the robbery. so with the adrenaline rush, he ran out to apprehend the offender. the offender may have reached for his weapon or not, but the clerk knew he was armed and dangerous so he fired killing the perpetrator.
Your points are completely unfounded.
How do you know the kid was still armed? You ASSUME that he reached for the weapon? He probably didn't even realise the clerk came outside, if he was riding a freaking bike, trying to get away.
Stop trying to rationalize your horrible words. Its not going to work, sir.
I won't say anything else to you, because I was taught to respect my elders, but you sure do push it.
Totally agreeing with Bella on this one.
The guy had already left so there really wasn't no reason for him to go chase the guy down and shoot him to death. :/
|
ghost1776
Posts: 962
Rank: Standard |
| October 15th, 2008 at 10:21 PM |
|
Originally posted by buckeyemedic09
You want to talk about heat of the moment? Try finding out moments before you go on a raid that the guy your looking for is the same son of a bitch that killed TWO of your friends with a goddamn bomb. Then try to push through a building knowing he was inside minutes ago and not want to kill every motherfucker inside for hiding him. You can't let that kind of shit get to you. You have to know how to gather yourself and stay frosty, because otherwise you'll end up in jail for murder, which is what the clerk will be tried for, undoubtedly. Worried about him coming back? Worried about an accomplice? LOCK YOURSELF SOMEWHERE, hell, bring your gun! If he shows back up, you're free and clear to engage. Fuck man, I'm in an Infantry company and I don't see people revel so much in a pointless death.
the clerk as far as we know, is not in an infantry unit so he didn't have the benefit of your training. no, the state of illinois and it's counties, especially around chicago, have not prosecuted people for shooting robbers or car jackers in this fashion nor would you find a jury, in my opinion, that would convict a clerk for shooting a multiple offender.
so far, there are no charges pending for the shooter. my guess is that there will not be any charges. look at what happened to Joe Horn in Texas. he was acquitted by a grand jury for shooting TWO home invaders.
in the heat of the moment, it's hard to teach a clerk how to properly respond to a robbery. check out Charlie Company in the My Lai Massacre in Vietnam. even with infantry training tell me if they conducted themselves properly back in 1968.
-- "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed." -Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution |
ghost1776
Posts: 962
Rank: Standard |
| October 15th, 2008 at 10:25 PM |
|
Originally posted by LastTime
Same shit, different story, Harry.
You post an article about somebody being shot dead at the scene of a crime, leave words like, "Mutant shot dead! Hip hip hooray!" only to have the thread locked when somebody has an opinion that is different than yours, and you shoot them down with insults like, "Drink your milk, child. It's past your bedtime."
You never change, and I don't expect you to. But this is not a place for you.
Plain and simple.
you are another one that has a hard time reading my posts. i was responding to insults.
i don't have to change, my viewpoints are based on sound logic.
if you want to leave this place feel free, but this is a public forum. if you can't engage the topic please feel free to try www.disney.com
-- "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed." -Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution |
Cheesy
Posts: 914
Rank: Standard |
| October 15th, 2008 at 10:25 PM |
|
Originally posted by ghost1776
Originally posted by buckeyemedic09
You want to talk about heat of the moment? Try finding out moments before you go on a raid that the guy your looking for is the same son of a bitch that killed TWO of your friends with a goddamn bomb. Then try to push through a building knowing he was inside minutes ago and not want to kill every motherfucker inside for hiding him. You can't let that kind of shit get to you. You have to know how to gather yourself and stay frosty, because otherwise you'll end up in jail for murder, which is what the clerk will be tried for, undoubtedly. Worried about him coming back? Worried about an accomplice? LOCK YOURSELF SOMEWHERE, hell, bring your gun! If he shows back up, you're free and clear to engage. Fuck man, I'm in an Infantry company and I don't see people revel so much in a pointless death.
the clerk as far as we know, is not in an infantry unit so he didn't have the benefit of your training. no, the state of illinois and it's counties, especially around chicago, have not prosecuted people for shooting robbers or car jackers in this fashion nor would you find a jury, in my opinion, that would convict a clerk for shooting a multiple offender.
so far, there are no charges pending for the shooter. my guess is that there will not be any charges. look at what happened to Joe Horn in Texas. he was acquitted by a grand jury for shooting TWO home invaders.
in the heat of the moment, it's hard to teach a clerk how to properly respond to a robbery. check out Charlie Company in the My Lai Massacre in Vietnam. even with infantry training tell me if they conducted themselves properly back in 1968.
Just about how insightful you have been about this subject will be just how the court will be with judging the clerk. Justice is blind...
-- Did you see that?
No...
It's probably for the best... |
|
|
