Driven to madness in Phoenix

[Walther P99]

The scum must have been totally inattentive to what was going on behind them. Once they found out the victim was chasing them in the Hummer, they should have been able to easily outrun him once they hit open road; although H1s (looked like one from photo) can go almost anywhere, they're VERY slow getting there.

However, there may be missing details that precluded the perps from escaping...

Good catch, though.

 

[Mike Irwin]

Ed,

No problem. Let's just return to the days of the blood feud, then.

There's a simple logic that applies here -- you're not the judge, you're not the jury, you're not the executioner.

If you're defening yourself, someone else, or in some states tangible property, from imminent, immediate, grave harm, that's one thing.

That's called self defense.

No threat of imminent, immediate, grave harm, and there's no basis for self defense.

At that point your actions become revenge, or vengeance , and there's simply no room for that sort of action in this horrific abortion we call human civilization.

There's also a much deeper consideration here.

What if every CCW holder begins practicing not self defense, but vengeance?

Hey, he stole the wife's purse? Run down the block after him and shoot him in the back.

See a kid breaking into cars? Use your car to pin him, and then finish him off with your CCW.

Want to become the proof that the anti-gunners are looking for as the reason why citizens can't be trusted to act responsibly with firearms?

 

[Edward429451]

Mike, WADR, thats ridiculous, extreme thinking and. shortsighted.

Its not return to the days of bloodfued, its return to the days of dont tread on me with impunity, have respect for your fellow man.

If you're defening yourself, someone else, or in some states tangible property, from imminent, immediate, grave harm, that's one thing.

Textbook answers sound good on paper but will get you into trouble in the long run. If they had just robbed you, is it reasonable to assume that they'd go rob / rape someone else? Of course. Once they cross that line the first time with no resistance, thet get bolder next time, go farther with their disrespect for mankind. Kinda like an alchoholic having his first drink ever. If they go unchecked, it dont bode well for the community.

At that point your actions become revenge, or vengeance , and there's simply no room for that sort of action in this horrific abortion we call human civilization

No Mike, its not necessarily vengance, but rather justice and a show to the community that we will not take this lieing down. Its a show to the criminal community that they better not try that crap on good citizens cause it wont fly. Letting them go would be a horrific abortion. It would encourage them to commit more crimes. When the criminal knows that they might just get chased down and ran over or shot for their actions, they might just decide to stay home and not go do robbries tonight. It keeps a certain balance in place that keeps this horrific abortion of a civilization from being a total hellhole where the criminals rule.

What if every CCW holder begins practicing not self defense, but vengeance?

Even if them guys live, they will think real hard before trying that stuff again. Even if they return to crime, they will certainly leave that particular mans business alone. What if every CCW holder begins practicing self defense and justice. Vengance is mine sayeth the lord. That dont mean we have to offer ourselves as sheep to the criminals and allow any sort of injustice the wish to give us, I mean, get real. The 'administration' has its agenda, the criminals have their agenda, and you would have good citizens roll over for everyone? Extreme thinking at its worst. We are the checks and balances my friend. For the administration and the criminals. That don't mean we get to go wild on them, but it don't mean we let em go either. Sometimes maybe depending on the circumstances but theres a reasonable middle ground to be found between your extreme thinking and extreme vigilantiism.

Hey, he stole the wife's purse? Run down the block after him and shoot him in the back.

Maybe, maybe not. If we hold ourselves to extreme rules of engagement, criminals will pick up on it and use that against us so crime will rise. If they think they might get shot in the back, it'll quell their enthusiasim for crime a little bit. Ya just never know, do ya'?

See a kid breaking into cars? Use your car to pin him, and then finish him off with your CCW.

C'mon Mike, get real. No other options but kill him or let him go? Extreme narrow minded thinking. Very unrealistic. Look for the middle ground for options. Situational ethics and personal brain power must be figured in. You cant subscribe to extremes, or it would rob you of your judgement and you are then just a robot killer or a sheep waiting to be slaughtered.

Want to become the proof that the anti-gunners are looking for as the reason why citizens can't be trusted to act responsibly with firearms?

Of course not. But do you want to be the proof to the criminals that if you go for your gun, all they have to do is turn their back to you and you wont fire? Yes, I'm armed and dangerous. No I'm not an armed threat. Methinks the propaganda machine may be working on you.

I agree with most of your posts on this forum Mike, but not this time. No offense.

 

[Gewehr98]

Ed, you sound like you're in favor of vigilante justice.

And that's a dangerous precedent, in and of itself. Never mind the fact that it's being broadcast on a firearms forum like THR.

 

[Edward429451]

Maybe it is a bad precedent. But no worse than the bad precedent of bringing charges against the man who chased down the BG's who just shoved a gun in his face.

I'm not saying I would've chased them down. I'm saying I wont condem the man who did. If they would not have shoved a gun in his face and robbed him, there wouldn't have been any so called vigilantiism now would there?

No easy answers. I'll continue to chew on it with an open mind.

But it sends the wrong message to the criminal element that if they know that all they got to do is get out the door and then all they have to worry about is the po po. There's something fundamentally wrong with this type of thinking. Bad precedent in and of itself. Sounds good on paper, but too many holes.
hmmm.

I got strong armed one time. Gave him my money (all .63 cents) and then he wanted my leather biker wallet also. I said no you'll have to fight me for it. He left, I kept my wallet. Spirit de' resistance works.

 

[Edward429451]

To further clarify my view..

If this crime had happened 100 or 150 years ago it would have been totally socially acceptable for the victim to chase down the BG and trample him with his horse, or even shoot him. THE CRIME HAS NOT CHANGED. Only peoples way of thinking about it has changed. Peoples perceptions have changed due to a deceptive propaganda campaign (whole nother thread), which slowly made it socially unacceptable (and even quasi illegal) for most to stand up for yourself in the face of victimization.

Are we now calling right wrong and wrong right? Just because the majority has changed its way of thinking doesn't change the truth. It doesn't make mr Humvee guilty either. You can't legislate morality, dangit!

I assert that anyone who could conceive of bringing charges on mr Humvee for his actions has been at least partially sucked in by the propaganda machine. We must resist this social conditioning and cling to the truth. I'll also add that I think we are liable for our 'collateral damage' that we may create in instances of this nature. Mr. Humvee had no collateral damage, and cleaned it up rather nicely, dontcha' think?

If one chooses to chase the BG's he accepts the responsibility of possible collateral damage at the onset. If he chooses to not chase them down, thats a judgement call and simply strategy & tactics. It should not be a quasi law though. I do not advocate wanton violence, but I'll be hanged before I let society dictate my conscience to me. Let the criminal beware.

If I'm not politically correct enough for THR, Oleg can PM me and tell me to move on, which I will, no regrets, no hard feelings. But I do refuse to perpetuate a deception and a wrongness that has been bestowed on us American people through propaganda.

 

[Gewehr98]

I guess the big question I have for Ed is this:

Were those robbers to die from Mr. Humvee's monster truck driving skills, would justice have been served in your mind's eye?

Think carefully about your answer, because we're talking about the taking of a human life here, over the theft of inanimate, material property.

The threat to the property owner's life or limb had ceased as soon as the robbers left the store with their loot. In that same instant, as the threat subsided, the store owner lost his self-defense legal justification, whether it be by firearm or Humvee. His actions went from self-preservation to straight-out revenge. Judges and juries of 100 years ago frowned upon revenge killings, as they would in this day and age. As they should in this particular case...

 

[Sergeant Bob]

Were those robbers to die from Mr. Humvee's monster truck driving skills

Wow, bummer.

The threat to the property owner's life or limb had ceased as soon as the robbers left the store with their loot.

Really? How do you know that? Suppose they decided to come back another day (hey, that was easy, let go back for more!)?
What if they just go down the road and find someone else to rob? That seems to be the business they're in so that's not so far fetched. By the time Mr. Humvee calls 911 and the cops arrive, they will be long gone and might already be pulling another job. Maybe the next one doesn't go so well and they end up killing someone (it was an armed robbery so we have to assume they would shoot someone if they felt threatened).

I don't think he was trying to kill them anyway. Probably just trying to stop them. If he had been trying to kill them he probably would have run over them again.

I think the man did a service to his community.

 

[Edward429451]

Were those robbers to die from Mr. Humvee's monster truck driving skills, would justice have been served in your mind's eye?

Think carefully about your answer, because we're talking about the taking of a human life here, over the theft of inanimate, material property.

I do not hold inantimate objects above human life. We're talking about more than money here. Its the principle of the matter. I think its reasonable to assume that the BG's would have shot Mr. Humvee if they felt threatened or so inclined. I also think its reasonable to assume that the BG's propensity to violence would have continued and even encouraged if Mr. Humvee had let them go.

Them robbers violated Mr. Humvees absolute right to live in unmolested peace. If someone shoves a gun in your face and you deal them back death, they got what they asked for. If it was not a life & death situation, then why did the BG's pick up deadly weapons before going to pay a visit to Mr. Humvee?

I doubt that I would have chased them down. I dont know for sure b/c I wasn't there and it didn't happen to me. I may have. If I was robbed yesterday and decided to let them go, but seen the guy(s) today, I might shoot em in the back and feel good about it. If you would let them go, it speaks of you as either a very forgiving spirit, a man with a huge heart, or a paranoid spirit, willing to let the threats of a third party dictate your conscience and actions. I prefer to think the former of you rather than the latter. Only you know for sure.

So to answer your question, yes I think justice was served. Such is the price for choosing a life of crime. Maybe they thought they'd get a discount and be let go? They did get a discount if they live.

Probabilities are high that these BG's will not reoffend. The community is a little safer.

Will I get on the internet and state conclusivley that I'll let robbers go? Not on your life. I refuse to send a message of reassurance to the criminal element.

 

[Steel]

IMHO:

Mr. Humvee's actions should not be encouraged, but the the DA should definitely cut him a lot of slack and only give him a slap on the wrist rather than make him an example and hammer him.