Support NeoGAF

[uncelestial]

I think everyone agrees guns are out of control. However if you only post threads about civilians misfiring or otherwise mishandling guns (not that this particular thread isn't or is such a case), then the discussions/arguments become an echo chamber.

Maybe there's an echo chamber because one idea is correct and the other side has stupid anecdotes like the one in the OP.

 

[Krappadizzle]

I'm sure he is really proud that whatever has happened in his life has led to robbing a waffle house.

Fuck him for not getting proper support from society for whatever obstacles he has faced.

Poor litter robber.

Nope, zero sympathy. At the end of the day he made the decision to rob a store. No one else. He wasn't held at AK47 point and told to go in there and take other people's livelihood to survive. He, like EVERY single other person on this planet has to take responsibility for themselves.

 

[A Link to the Past]

I know GAF is pretty damn leftist, but how can anyone defend the assailant's actions/condemn the customer?

Guy goes into a populated restaurant, brandishing a firearm, demanding money. So it's an armed robbery. Then the perpetrator leaves, and a customer follows him out and calls out to the perp. Said perp then turns around, and brandishes the weapon again in a threatening manner and is shot down.

What isn't clear about this?

Let's say that the man followed the robber, and instead of taking out the robber, the robber took him out. Took a hostage because the man decided to escalate the situation unreasonably. Maybe killed someone in escaping. These are reasonable results that could have occurred from this man's dangerous, reckless behavior. Is that clear?

 

[Mr. Giggles]

It's only fair that positive use of CCWs get posted as much as negatives.

I think so too.

 

[The Faceless Master]

Really, the key is this:

If security footage corroborates with this, then the shooter has a reasonable cause to fear for the safety of his wife, and he was nothing short of brave to call to the robber and neutralize him. If footage shows this to be false, then the shooter should be arrested. I think it's pretty clear-cut.

i don't see any way the shooter gets arrested. even if the investigation somehow shows the robber was shot in the back and he wasn't even married, no way dude gets arrested.

 

[Arrogant Bastard]

i don't see any way the shooter gets arrested. even if the investigation somehow shows the robber was shot in the back and he wasn't even married, no way dude gets arrested.

Not in Texas, not a chance.

 

[pgtl_10]

It's only fair that positive use of CCWs get posted as much as negatives.

This isn't a positive. The robber was fleeing and the customer decided to call for him. It was silly bravado.

 

[Imperfected]

No one called the police? There is such a thing as citizen arrest. It's really odd that people are sympathizing with a criminal who placed people at gun point and demanded shit. This is confusing.

"Sympathizing with a criminal" is an odd way of framing the situation, considering that what the vigilante did was almost certainly criminal in and of itself, but you're almost certainly expecting people to sympathize with him.

More to the point, I'm not shedding any tears over the fact a robber got shot. That doesn't mean I'm not concerned that the person who shot him, another private citizen stepping well outside the bounds of his legal authority, might be posing a danger to others and himself on the basis of his actions.

If David Duke died in a plane crash, I wouldn't feel sorry for Duke, but I'd still be pretty damn concerned about why the plane crashed in the first place.

 

[darthbob]

Let's say that the man followed the robber, and instead of taking out the robber, the robber took him out. Took a hostage because the man decided to escalate the situation unreasonably. Maybe killed someone in escaping. These are reasonable results that could have occurred from this man's dangerous, reckless behavior. Is that clear?

These are all hypotheticals and we'll never know 'what could have happened', it's just a slippery slope argument.

Should the man have stayed in the diner? Perhaps. It would have been safer, sure. But he was still within his rights to defend himself and to neutralize the perpetrator. Guy's a hero in my book.

 

[A Link to the Past]

These are all hypotheticals and we'll never know 'what could have happened', it's just a slippery slope argument.

Should the man have stayed in the diner? Perhaps. It would have been safer, sure. But he was still within his rights to defend himself and to neutralize the perpetrator. Guy's a hero in my book.

Literally not a slippery slope argument. Not for even a second. It is pointing out the extremely real end result of vigilante justice. The man made a conscious decision to create a dangerous situation.

 

[Emerson]

People getting shot isn't positive, ever.

It was pretty great when Hitler shot himself if you ask me.

 

[MogCakes]

Maybe there's an echo chamber because one idea is correct and the other side has stupid anecdotes like the one in the OP.

I'm presuming from OP's later statements that he believes it important to post stories where gun use does not result in innocent fatality or injury, I don't claim to speak for him beyond that. Things being as they are in this country right now, there will be some cases like this, how frequent they are or what intent is to be had in seeking them out is upon OP to make his case.

 

[Arrogant Bastard]

Unless this is somehow a massive coincidence, (unlikely) this robber has done this before. It really doesn't change the fact that I think the CCW should be charged, which won't happen. Mainly just don't care for the fact that CCW's think it is somehow their right/duty to act as the police in situations like this. I know it is stereotypical, but it seems like there is some amount of CCW's who are hoping for a situation exactly like this.

It was pretty great when Hitler shot himself if you ask me.

Meh, would have rather had him brought up on charges like Eichmann.

 

[minor effort]

Gun laws rely on semantics, otherwise people will always find ways around them. It's hard to take anti-gun people seriously when they don't actually know anything about guns or current gun laws.

It's not really semantics though. These are actual concrete terms that people view as unimportant semantics, which leads to dumb gun laws that have no appreciable affect on gun violence.

Sorry, I'll walk back my comment a bit, as I admit it was poorly considered.

I wasn't necessarily calling anyone out. It was more just an observation how on any topic involving guns in any capacity finds it's way to this argument. Obviously if this were a specific discussion on gun control policy and the detail wherein that semantic argument would be extremely relevant.

 

[uncelestial]

I'm presuming from OP's later statements that he believes it important to post stories where gun use does not result in innocent fatality or injury, I don't claim to speak for him beyond that. Things being as they are in this country right now, there will be some cases like this, how frequent they are or what intent is to be had in seeking them out is upon OP to make his case.

It's only fair that positive use of CCWs get posted as much as negatives.

It's not a game of anecdotes. There are overwhelming statistics and studies covering thousands of gun deaths, and your crap posts about very occasional hero vigilantes that feed stupid cowboy gun owner fantasies that help put bad laws like CCW/open carry on the books.

Even if this were a clear cut case of the benefits of open carry (a description I don't think people should apply to the summary execution of a thief in a restaurant), the occasional odd situation having a positive outcome on a given day doesn't account for the fact that tens of thousands of people were killed by guns last year and their deaths are directly attributable to ease of gun access.

If we just wanted to play the anecdote game and ignore mass trends we could call seatbelts controversial because one time a seatbelt decapitated someone and another time someone who wasn't wearing a seatbelt was free to be thrown from their convertible landed safely in the grass while their car crashed and burned.

These posts are a shitty distraction and add nothing constructive to the gun conversation.

 

[kess]

I'm presuming from OP's later statements that he believes it important to post stories where gun use does not result in innocent fatality or injury, I don't claim to speak for him beyond that. Things being as they are in this country right now, there will be some cases like this, how frequent they are or what intent is to be had in seeking them out is upon OP to make his case.

The ratio of incidents that have "happy" endings is extremely low. If there was a topic for every shooting incident in the country this week the first page of OT would be swamped.

 

[minor effort]

These are all hypotheticals and we'll never know 'what could have happened', it's just a slippery slope argument.

Should the man have stayed in the diner? Perhaps. It would have been safer, sure. But he was still within his rights to defend himself and to neutralize the perpetrator. Guy's a hero in my book.

The argument was that once he left the diner and starter pursuing the assailant, he went well past the point of defending himself.

Going out to provoke somebody into pointing a gun at you so you have a better legal defense to shoot them doesn't sound "heroic".

 

[OrlanisWorks]

I hate this shit. The shooter is really stupid for reasons very different than the criminal who was shot. I wouldn't support charging the little vigilante "hero" with a crime though. You could say he was trying to make a citizen's arrest and it simply went to absolute shite.

In a situation where you plan to commit a crime where those present believe you might destroy innocent people's lives, you should expect any and all trouble.

I feel satisfied by this type of news, but it's very wrong to feel that way. He shouldn't have been followed and shot. This guy ain't Hitler, or Mao, or Stalin. I don't know any of these people or their stories. American society needs an endless amount of fixing and it might not be so hard if there weren't an idiot majority, incapable of thinking critically or selflessly, at the steering wheel trying to pull away from making a better living space.

This rabbit hole leads me to a pure cynical view of the world and it's all a reminder of how that view is mostly accurate. We are incredibly stupid. /rant :3

 

[Jinaar]

Man just wanted to kill someone else. I don't see anything else here. No one with a wife who is not even at the scene goes out and confronts someone else with a weapon. This is not the wild west.

 

[Seductivpancakes]

Should the man have stayed in the diner? Perhaps. It would have been safer, sure. But he was still within his rights to defend himself and to neutralize the perpetrator. Guy's a hero in my book.

If the guy stopped the robber while he was in the restaurant robbing the place, sure that's totally self defense, as well as defending the other patrons. Even better if no one got hurt.

But that's not the story that's being told here.

 

[MogCakes]

the occasional odd situation having a positive outcome on a given day doesn't account for the fact that tens of thousands of people were killed by guns last year and their deaths are directly attributable to ease of gun access.

I don't recall making the argument that one case where guns may or may not have been used correctly invalidates all other cases where the result was innocent injury or loss of life or endangerment. You are shouting at a strawman of your own creation here.

 

[nynt9]

Poor litter robber.

Nope, zero sympathy. At the end of the day he made the decision to rob a store. No one else. He wasn't held at AK47 point and told to go in there and take other people's livelihood to survive. He, like EVERY single other person on this planet has to take responsibility for themselves.

People who think like this legit scare me. You realize that (especially in countries with working systems) criminals can be reformed and returned to society as productive people right? This guy didn't hurt anyone. Yes, he fucked up and did something wrong, and he should face trial for that. Not be gunned down in a parking lot by some trigger happy cowboy. If we start executing people who commit crimes without trial the world becomes a lot uglier of a place.

 

[ryutaro's mama]

Man just wanted to kill someone else. I don't see anything else here. No one with a wife who is not even at the scene goes out and confronts someone else with a weapon. This is not the wild west.

Exactly how I saw it. He was prolly waiting for this day when he got his CCW and when the suspect fled, so did his "moment", so he pursued.

 

[mkenyon]

Maybe there's an echo chamber because one idea is correct and the other side has stupid anecdotes like the one in the OP.

I don't think so.

The social cross section of GAF is pretty small. Most are young, sub/urban, and left leaning. Anyone outside of that is an outlier. Shit, I hit two of those three and am still an outlier.

Sorry, I'll walk back my comment a bit, as I admit it was poorly considered.

I wasn't necessarily calling anyone out. It was more just an observation how on any topic involving guns in any capacity finds it's way to this argument. Obviously if this were a specific discussion on gun control policy and the detail wherein that semantic argument would be extremely relevant.

We're nerds, which is why we are on GAF. If someone called a Mario game a TPS or something, you'd see the same thing.

As a gun rights advocate, I also see it as a chance to help even a few people better understand firearms so we can make some intelligent changes in the future to reduce gun violence.

If everyone is writing to their representatives to ban "assault rifles" or some silly nonsense, we end up with shit legislation like the AWB, which had zero impact on gun violence.

 

[Arrogant Bastard]

I hate this shit. The shooter is really stupid for reasons very different than the criminal who was shot. I wouldn't support charging the little vigilante "hero" with a crime though. You could say he was trying to make a citizen's arrest and it simply went to absolute shite.

This is precisely why I would want to see him charged. We don't need more CCW's out there thinking they are citizen arrest hero, they feel that way enough as is. All this does is make those individuals feel more empowered to act like citizen cop.

Should the man have stayed in the diner? Perhaps. It would have been safer, sure. But he was still within his rights to defend himself and to neutralize the perpetrator. Guy's a hero in my book.

No, he really wasn't.

 

[MogCakes]

The ratio of incidents that have "happy" endings is extremely low. If there was a topic for every shooting incident in the country this week the first page of OT would be swamped.

Indeed. What is the intent behind this topic, OP?

 

[Krappadizzle]

People who think like this legit scare me. You realize that (especially in countries with working systems) criminals can be reformed and returned to society as productive people right? This guy didn't hurt anyone. Yes, he fucked up and did something wrong, and he should face trial for that. Not be gunned down in a parking lot by some trigger happy cowboy. If we start executing people who commit crimes without trial the world becomes a lot uglier of a place.

Well, the guy wasn't executed. Also, the man could have avoided being shot by...not going there brandishing a weapon. Especially in a state like Texas. Also saying "the guy didn't hurt anyone." Well he was in their robbing people of their livelihood and their potential to provide for their families.

 

[TaterTots]

Do you think robbers deserve immediate death sentences without due process? Keep in mind, none of us here are siding with the robber. He's obviously a criminal. We just don't think he should have been followed and shot.



The one that escalated the non-violent situation is the shooter. The potential for collateral damage is incredibly high in public shootouts like this. The shooter's life wasn't being threatened until he purposeful put himself in harm's way so that he could live out his hero fantasy at the risk of the public.

We simply do not know if the shooter had intentions of harming this man. As I've stated, it's purely speculation. He claims the robber pointed a rifle at him. For all we know he was trying to detain the suspect before he could flee. We do not know this persons mindset. People are only bringing this up for their agenda.

 

[nynt9]

Well, the guy wasn't executed. Also, the man could have avoided being shot by...not going there brandishing a weapon. Especially in a state like Texas.

What is your bar for shooting someone? At what point do you think someone deserves to be shot no questions asked? This situation was over with 0 casualties/injuries, until the "hero" decided to take matters into his own hands.

 

[uncelestial]

I don't recall making the argument that one case where guns may or may not have been used correctly invalidates all other cases where the result was innocent injury or loss of life or endangerment. You are shouting at a strawman of your own creation here.

Shushing critics of the OP with "let him make a point, this is interesting" is lowkey acting as a gun violence apologist, because that's what the OP is, and it doesn't really matter whether you've articulated agreement with what's being implied. The OP is saying "our lax gun laws aren't all bad -- look at this cool story!" Well, our lax gun laws ARE bad. This is a stupid story. And I'll criticize it, and people who think this shit has a place at the big boy's table, all fucking day if I want to.

 

[Arrogant Bastard]

We simply do not know if the shooter had intentions of harming this man. As I've stated, it's purely speculation. He claims the robber pointed a rifle at him. For all we know he was trying to detain the suspect before he could flee. We do not know this persons mindset. People are only bringing this up for their agenda.

This is a joke right?

You actually believe he was trying a citizens arrest?

 

[Seductivpancakes]

We simply do not know if the shooter had intentions of harming this man. As I've stated, it's purely speculation. He claims the robber pointed a rifle at him. For all we know he was trying to detain the suspect before he could flee. We do not know this persons mindset. People are only bringing this up for their agenda.

Doesn't matter cause he still followed him to the parking lot to confront him. Maybe he wanted to tell the dude, please give us our money back or to wish him good night, but he still decided to follow an armed criminal that just robbed the place.

It was not a rational thing to do, and it was a situation in which the police should deal with.

 

[minor effort]

Well, the guy wasn't executed.

Okay, well, he's on life support. So attempted execution for now.

Also, the man could have avoided being shot by...not going there brandishing a weapon. Especially in a state like Texas.

Again, I don't see anyone here arguing that the robber didn't initially begin the scenario that ended with his being shot. But waving it off as "that's just Texas" isn't really a good defense of vigilante justice.

 

[Mackenzie 92]

I know GAF is pretty damn leftist, but how can anyone defend the assailant's actions/condemn the customer?

Guy goes into a populated restaurant, brandishing a firearm, demanding money. So it's an armed robbery. Then the perpetrator leaves, and a customer follows him out and calls out to the perp. Said perp then turns around, and brandishes the weapon again in a threatening manner and is shot down.

What isn't clear about this?

I'm not defending the perps actions, but even criminals have rights.

I think they should have both been arrested. What if the wanna be hero or vigilante would have hit an innocent bystander, or caused a shootout that ended with more loss of life? In any case, the guy had zero right to take the law into his own hands and possibly end someone's life. Defending this type of behavior sets a bad precedent imo and is a slippery slope.

 

[Krappadizzle]

What is your bar for shooting someone? At what point do you think someone deserves to be shot no questions asked? This situation was over with 0 casualties/injuries, until the "hero" decided to take matters into his own hands.

When they point an AK47 at me is a pretty good point.

 

[Vegetable Lasagna]

A "hero with a gun" finally killed the villain in a situation where no one was going to die anyway. We definitely need more guns.

Honestly, dude should have just stayed inside and called his wife. Could have got other people or himself filled with bullet holes.

 

[MogCakes]

Shushing critics of the OP with "let him make a point, this is interesting" is lowkey acting as a gun violence apologist, because that's what the OP is, and it doesn't really matter whether you've articulated agreement with what's being implied. The OP is saying "our lax gun laws aren't all bad -- look at this cool story!" Well, our lax gun laws ARE bad. This is a stupid story. And I'll criticize it, and people who think this shit has a place at the big boy's table, all fucking day if I want to.

What i'm reading from this is you came in with intent to find an enemy to argue against and are doing your best to turn my posts into that ideal boogeyman.

 

[Arrogant Bastard]

When they point an AK47 at me is a pretty good point.

Guess what that isn't when he shot him.

Wonder why this guy didn't shoot anyone when he pulled the same stunt in NC, even when people in the restaurant harassed him and pushed him out of the place.

 

[jim-jam bongs]

No, of course not. I wouldn't be risking my life, but the life of anybody in that Waffle House (or around that area) that could be caught with stray bullets.

The likelihood of anything happening to her is so astronomically slim. Unless she was pulling into the parking lot at that moment, I don't see how he would have harmed her. Even then, he probably would have just left the scene - he never shot anybody in the restaurant so what would make you think he would shoot somebody after the fact that would pose absolutely no threat?

The wife thing just came off as an excuse because he wanted to kill someone and be a hero.

What I visualize is realizing everyone in the store is safe, and the robber is leaving. If you still had my phone I would call my wife. If not, see if I could use someone else's or the stores' if it wasn't in use. Either way, I would feel my wife would be safe.

Sanity, bravo. Another wannabe hero guns someone down. Sort your shit out, America. Neither party involved here should have had a gun, clearly they aren't responsible people.

 

[ryutaro's mama]

When they point an AK47 at me is a pretty good point.

I will ask again, do we have confirmation (surveillance video) that this is what happened, in the PARING LOT where the suspect fled to?

Y/N?

You don't get some residual ability to shoot a guy that pointed a gun at you and then ran away.

 

[BokehKing]

People who think like this legit scare me. You realize that (especially in countries with working systems) criminals can be reformed and returned to society as productive people right? This guy didn't hurt anyone. Yes, he fucked up and did something wrong, and he should face trial for that. Not be gunned down in a parking lot by some trigger happy cowboy. If we start executing people who commit crimes without trial the world becomes a lot uglier of a place.

How often does that rehabilitation work? I know people that come home, do some dumb shit and end back in rikers/up north again.

But damn what kind of karma do you expect when you walk into a restaraunt with an assault rifle?

 

[Arrogant Bastard]

I will ask again, do we have confirmation (surveillance video) that this is what happened, in the PARING LOT where the suspect fled to?

Y/N?

You don't get some residual ability to shoot a guy that pointed a gun at you and then ran away.

No, we don't, as of yet. Nor do we seemingly know when his wife that was on the way arrived on scene.

 

[SirClinksAlot]

How often does that rehabilitation work? I know people that come home, do some dumb shit and end back in rikers/up north again.

But damn what kind of karma do you expect when you walk into a restaraunt with an assault rifle?

It tends to work well in countries that try and do actual rehabilitation. Here in the US we don't do that. We don't focus on making people better. We make people lifelong criminals because that's where the profit is.

 

[jim-jam bongs]

When they point an AK47 at me is a pretty good point.

What if you point a gun at them first? Are they allowed to shoot you? Because that's what happened here. You can hem and haw about who is a "good guy" and who is a "bad guy" if you like, but that's just a sign of an immature sense of ethics which draws more from TV shows than an appreciation for the complexity of modern society.

 

[uncelestial]

What i'm reading from this is you came in with intent to find an enemy to argue against and are doing your best to turn my posts into that ideal boogeyman.

I don't have to turn this:

if you only post threads about civilians misfiring or otherwise mishandling guns ...then the discussions/arguments become an echo chamber.

Into anything but what it is: Encouraging over-amplification of cowboy anecdotes that muddy the discussion and serve as gun violence apologia.

This is the "record low reached in Siberia; is global warming real?" of gun violence stories.

 

[Jinaar]

"The customer called out to the robber, who turned and pointed the rifle at him, police said. The customer then shot the robber several times."

The man did this on purpose. He knows if he shot the man in the back, he would be in jail for attempted murder/murder. Did the guy just bring up his AK47 but not actually pointed at the man? I bet all it took was for the robber to turn around, all the while just normally having the gun in a position that was not facing straight down and bang bang bang took place.

 

[stump sock]

And I'll criticize it, and people who think this shit has a place at the big boy's table, all fucking day if I want to.

part of being at the big boy's table also includes acting like a big boy.

 

[tearsintherain]

I will ask again, do we have confirmation (surveillance video) that this is what happened, in the PARING LOT where the suspect fled to?

Y/N?

You don't get some residual ability to shoot a guy that pointed a gun at you and then ran away.

Actually, legally speaking, that is exactly what stand your ground aka Castle Doctrine says. The Texas version allows you to use deadly force to prevent someone who is fleeing immediately after committing burglary, robbery, or theft during the night. You may recall a famous case where a guy shot a prostitute who took his money for sex but didn't follow through, he followed her and killed her and was found not guilty.

So yeah, don't rob people in Texas because they absolutely have the legal right to follow you and kill you. It varies state by state.

 

[uncelestial]

part of being at the big boy's table also includes acting like a big boy.

Since that presumably doesn't include taking bad faith arguments seriously, I consider my spot secure.

 

[MogCakes]

I don't have to turn this:



Into anything but what it is: Encouraging over-amplification of cowboy anecdotes that muddy the discussion and serve as gun violence apologia.

My point was exactly as I said it with no subliminal intent behind. It is why we are able to have an argument in this thread in the first place. Places where people can clash ideas and debate are good for the forum, else it stagnates. I've posted my thoughts on the topic itself throughout the thread.