The plan was to steal tools. Then customers drew their guns

How would I know? I’ve never had a gun in my face, but I’ve been in situations where my actions were governed by fear, and I know the logical part of my brain wasn’t in charge.

I’ll watch plenty of news from plenty of sources. I’m an educated consumer, but thanks for your concern. You’re making assumptions about me and my habits that you can’t claim to know.

Would have thought the description to be enough considering it was discussed heavily around here, but here you go.
https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.wa...stand-your-ground-laws-prosecutors-disagreed/
I understand you may not trust the source so feel free to check the story against one you do. The video is quite telling. Surrender doesn’t always equal survival.

If you point a gun at someone you’d better be ready to kill them. Are you will to kill someone to protect a store from losing $1,600 in product? I’d say the gun owner willing to kill over stuff is escalating the situation.

 

but they were still just trying to stop a crime. they wouldn't have done anything had there not been a crime committed in the first place.

Further all police do is that come to your business and write a report because they can't do anything because they weren't there.

Once again cards do not move on their own they have to be operated by a human being. The thieves 100% escalated it by using the car to try and run them over. If they had just surrendered the car wouldn't have been shot at.

I noticed how you keep saying a car that was about to start moving placing a autonomy on that behavior of intentionally driving over a person with an automobile.

Why do you have to be so dishonest and ridiculous?

Did you know that if you hit someone with a car intentionally you've committed assault with a deadly weapon?

 

You don’t point a gun at what you’re not ready to destroy. If those men didn’t understand that then they have no business being in possession of guns. Assuming they were responsible gun owners they were ready to kill over merchandise.

So boxing people in with guns drawn is a deescalation tactic? You can’t see why the gun owners actions caused them to run?

 

Pointing a gun at someone doesn't automatically mean you have to shoot them for **** sake. If that was the case then everytime an armed robber robbed a gas station with a gun you would have a dead clerk and everytime a cop drew his gun he would just start shooting right away. We know neither of these things happened so why are you lying about this crap?

 

Police do that exact thing ALL THE ****ING TIME. Notice how none of them were charged with any crimes because they did NOTHING wrong. <Rule 2>

 

In California, that becomes a successful robbery.

 

Police can put out a BOLO with a license plate number. Citizens should have simply got that information and given it to police.

I am not assigning the car autonomy. The car had drivers, it was the thieves. The gun owners knew they were going to drive away. They wanted to force the standoff with guns drawn and surrounding the vehicle. Do you suppose if they weren’t there the thieves would have sat in the parking lot indefinitely?

 

What facts? The highest gun per capita regions are among the lowest for gun crimes.

 

Check out this stupid person in my neck of the woods, from three years ago:

https://www.macombdaily.com/news/na...cle_91907111-7864-501e-a837-3b1cf3c2df7c.html

That Auburn Hills, MI Home Depot shares it's entrance and exit with Sam's Club. Right smack next to that entrance/exit is Sam's Club's gas pumps. Yea, she was a real genius to shot at these idiots or shoplifting.

 

so you don't know anything you were just talking out of your ass. I guess it makes sense you would believe whatever the News tells you.

like a good little lemming.

no I'm making character evaluations based on how you debate. From cars driving themselves without the driver intentionally trying to run over somebody, so that you can then say someone who tried to stop somebody from driving somewhere is escalating versus the person making the choice to escalate to behind the wheel.

Then you're being intentionally vague about some other instances that you want to equate to this, so you can spend some false narrative about gun owners running around wild.

This isn't sumption this is what you have done.

a name or a case is sufficient I don't click on links.

I would say in the case of this theft surrender absolutely would equal survival because everyone survived there were people surrounding the car with guns drawn on the thieves if they wanted to kill them they would have been dead. In fact the people with guns shot the car to disable it not the people.

so Satan because something happened in some other case that they can't surrender in this case is dishonest.

All of the circumstances are different.

you watch too many movies. They pulled a gun on the thieves to stop them. And they did effectively.

They didn't shoot at any person. To not understand the effectiveness of that action is to be willfully blind.

[QUOTE[I’d say the gun owner willing to kill over stuff is escalating the situation.[/QUOTE]that's because you have a political agenda and an extreme level of bias that you are completely blind you refuse to even understand the facts of the case.

Who's the person behind the wheel intentionally drove the car into another human being. That was the only act of violence in this whole situation. Good person driving the car absolutely escalated the situation. He committed a violent act nobody else did.

To deny that and then call someone else dishonest is cognitive dissonance.

 

The "genius" in the my above post was a CCW holder.

 

I think they were ready to destroy whatever pointing their guns at.

okay show me they didn't understand that.

that does not follow logically. the fact that they didn't kill over merchandise undermines your assumption that they were willing to.

yes. That's why police and military do it.

They weren't running they stayed in the car and then attempted to assault people with the car because they wanted to keep the merchandise and get away.

If all they were concerned about was living send the first choice would be surrender the second choice would be get out of the car where you're at stationary Target and run.

So again you have presented another lie they weren't trying to flee they were trying to overpower using violence people that were attempting to thwart their criminal act.

Why do you have to be so dishonest? Is your agenda that important?

 

<Mod Edit>

Police have access to lethal and non-leathal force they would have space to use their training to make an appropriate decision as to what level of force shoplifters would call for. Weekend warriors that plink targets at the local range and walk around hoping for the chance to pull their weapon dont have the training or the tools to make the right decisions in that situation.

None of them are charged because the shooters cleared out before the police got there. They are currently wanted for questioning. Wonder why they ran from the police. It’s a mystery.

<Reply to Deleted>

 

How do you figure it is a lie to say they were fleeing the scene? Did they come back in the car to try and run anyone over?

 

Yeah, sure,

If that is your opinion of amendments then you maybe should petition to remove the 2nd. one.

 

At what point do you think it would be acceptable for a citizen to become involved?
And what metric do you use?

well you tried and then I caught you. I'm glad to see you have retracted that argument.

But you're doing everything in your power to try an excuse the only act of violence in this entire incident because it was not perpetrated by the gun owners.

That's called having an agenda.

so are you suggesting owning a gun imbues you with psychic powers or just pointing it at someone imbues you with psychic powers?

How did they know that please explain to me.

and now astonishingly you know what they wanted. How did you acquire psychic powers?

Explain how you know what they wanted.

and then the only act of violence that occurred in the entire situation was perpetrated by the thieves driving the car.

but magically even though they made a violent move first they didn't escalate the situation you were going to have to explain that one.

see in my understanding going from a heated situation to an act of violence is escalation.

What if scenarios are irrelevant. What happened, happened.

And I'm looking at the events without prejudice or agenda unlike you.

So we'll run through them.

First:
Thieves make a conscious decision to First escalate a normal situation to a heated one by taking something that doesn't belong to them.
Second:
Citizens try to de-escalate this situation by presenting a good reason to surrender.
Third: thieves escalate more by attempting to use a car as a battering ram against a human in order to flee with their ill-gotten gain.


The way I'm looking at it, the way I was taught in Police academy to look at it, is the only escalations including the one from non-violence to violence was perpetrated solely by the thieves.

Now because you have an agenda and a prejudice against gun owners you want to whitewash over their escalations. And you've attempted some boneheaded moves in that effort.

My question is why? Maybe it's because you were so hopelessly brainwashed by the news.

 

I find that deplorable.

Unless a person is threatening violence in their theft, the least necessary force should be used to stop the theft.

 

how can you sit here with a straight face and say the people who committed the only act of violence in the entire situation didn't escalate?

Do you think hitting someone with a car intentionally while trying to flee the scene of a crime you just committed is not an act of violence?

Because the law says it is. And up until that point the situation wasn't violent.

So it went from non-violent to violent because of the actions of the thieves.

If it didn't please explain.

 

If an armed robber walks in and points a gun at a clerk it is understood he is willing to kill the clerk to take what he wants. If a private citizen points a gun at a shoplifter to stop them from shoplifting he is threatening to kill him if he doesn’t stop. A private citizen lacks the training to make that decision.

 

Absolutely.

 

Yes idiots of all stripe exist. You should see some of the stupid things people do while they're driving a car.

 

that's because you have a political agenda and an extreme level of bias that you are completely blind you refuse to even understand the facts of the case.

Who's the person behind the wheel intentionally drove the car into another human being. That was the only act of violence in this whole situation. Good person driving the car absolutely escalated the


Begin DaveBN:
Jesus man, watching your posting habits you struck me as being somewhat level headed. I think I was about as wrong as possible on that. I’ll not respond to anymore of your garbage in this thead. Enjoy your new year.

Edit: no idea what happened with the formatting. Too much of a hassle to fix on the mobile app.

 

That is the A to Z of it.

 

Ah, that was Polydectes words, not mine. Formatting just went screwy somewhere when I was posting. It’s a pain in the ass to fix on mobile.