Another Fucking Mass Shooting At US School

[Loren Pechtel]

He should have waited to see what he would do. If he turned, shoot.

Self-defense extends to others. If someone is threatened with lethal force, a third party may use lethal force to protect that person. And this robber was threatening everyone in the restaurant.

"Self-defense" does not extend to others by definition (hint: the term "self" says it all). Really, this is not rocket science. If you think this shooting was morally acceptable, that is your privilege. But it was not self-defense in any reasonable shape or form.

Except you can legally defend others (although some states limit who you can defend.) At the time the guy shot the robber's "gun" was pointed pretty close to a customer that's off screen. (Watch the start and remember where people are.) If you choose to defend a third party you step into their shoes legally--you have only the rights they have, if they have somehow unknown to you forfeited the right of self defense then your actions become unlawful.

We do not have any audio, but the video clearly indicates the robber was moving towards the exit. Which suggests to those who are neither visibly nor reason impaired that the robber was not a threat.

Moving towards doesn't mean it's over. The guy chose to pull an armed robbery in a place where there's a decent chance someone is packing--he's a grade A moron. Sometimes morons do stupid things like shoot the victim because they didn't get as much money as they were expecting and decide the victim was holding back.

 

[Oleg]

If Texas law says that it's legal to shoot a fleeing person dead

Dude wasn't fleeing when he got popped. If he left the restaurant and the patron followed him then shot, I'm with you. But so long as he's using lethal force to rob and hold these people hostage, he's a threat that anyone should be permitted to eliminate. Being kind to violent criminals doesn't always save you.

 

[laughing dog]

He should have waited to see what he would do. If he turned, shoot.

Self-defense extends to others. If someone is threatened with lethal force, a third party may use lethal force to protect that person. And this robber was threatening everyone in the restaurant.

"Self-defense" does not extend to others by definition (hint: the term "self" says it all). Really, this is not rocket science. If you think this shooting was morally acceptable, that is your privilege. But it was not self-defense in any reasonable shape or form.

Except you can legally defend others (although some states limit who you can defend.) At the time the guy shot the robber's "gun" was pointed pretty close to a customer that's off screen. (Watch the start and remember where people are.) If you choose to defend a third party you step into their shoes legally--you have only the rights they have, if they have somehow unknown to you forfeited the right of self defense then your actions become unlawful.

We do not have any audio, but the video clearly indicates the robber was moving towards the exit. Which suggests to those who are neither visibly nor reason impaired that the robber was not a threat.

Moving towards doesn't mean it's over. The guy chose to pull an armed robbery in a place where there's a decent chance someone is packing--he's a grade A moron. Sometimes morons do stupid things like shoot the victim because they didn't get as much money as they were expecting and decide the victim was holding back.

There would be a lot more killings if morons were fair game.

The robber was moving towards the door with his back to the shooter. He did not appear a threat to anyone. It is morally repugnant to defend his killing even if it is legal under Texas law.

 

[Oleg]

It is morally repugnant to defend his killing even if it is legal under Texas law.

The armed robber created the dangerous situation. He did that. Him.

 

[Patooka]

It is morally repugnant to defend his killing even if it is legal under Texas law.

The armed robber created the dangerous situation. He did that. Him.

This is the part where you point out it's absolutely vital the shop owner was armed with an Armalite and such weapons should be easily accessible to the public.

 

[Derec]

Why the fuck would anyone in a developed nation want to have a handgun for self defence?

Because police can't be everywhere, not even heavily armed police made necessary by Muslim mass migrants "culturally enriching" Europe.

Literally nobody in any developed nation outside the USA finds the prohibition of handguns for this purpose to be so unreasonable as to be obviously wrong without further discussion.

Really? [citation needed] for the claim that "literally nobody" finds firearm restrictions in countries like UK "so unreasonable as to be obviously wrong".

Almost nobody in that population would suggest that it might, in fact, be a wise or sensible thing to allow handguns for this purpose.

[citation needed] for that claim too.

Literally nobody in London, or Paris, or Sydney feels unsafe because they can't have a handgun; But many many residents of those cities would hesitate to visit the USA for fear of the handguns that are so ubiquitous there.

[citation needed] for the first sentence. I do not doubt the second - but the attitude of "many residents" is more due to anti-Americanism common in those cities than anything objective. According to this, London and Paris have a higher crime rate than NYC. Lower than Chicago though, but Marseille is very close. No points for guessing why Marseille of all cities is so high on the list ...

 

[Derec]

This is the part where you point out it's absolutely vital the shop owner was armed with an Armalite and such weapons should be easily accessible to the public.

No, this is the part where we point out that banning certain semiauto rifles would not affected how this robbery went down. Therefore, it is irrelevant to this particular idee fixe of the Democratic Party.

In a liberal society, one should come up with sufficient reasons for something to be banned. Allowing things should be the default. What you illiberal leftists want (at least for things you dislike, such as guns or sex work) is for things to be banned unless sufficient reasons are offered for it to be allowed, and often not even then.

 

[Derec]

There would be a lot more killings if morons were fair game.

The robber was moving towards the door with his back to the shooter. He did not appear a threat to anyone. It is morally repugnant to defend his killing even if it is legal under Texas law.

He may have been moving toward the exit, but he was still threatening the patrons and employees with deadly force. So he was most definitely a threat. That the patron chose the moment the perp was turned away from him to pull his gun was tactical in order not to be seen pulling his gun by the perp. Now it seems from the full video that the patron overkilled the perp, which could be a problem. Still a much happier outcome than the one from the robbery in Mississippi also posted here (but erroneously identified as Georgia).

 

[Patooka]

This is the part where you point out it's absolutely vital the shop owner was armed with an Armalite and such weapons should be easily accessible to the public.

No, this is the part where we point out that banning certain semiauto rifles would not affected how this robbery went down. Therefore, it is irrelevant to this particular idee fixe of the Democratic Party.

In a liberal society, one should come up with sufficient reasons for something to be banned. Allowing things should be the default. What you illiberal leftists want (at least for things you dislike, such as guns or sex work) is for things to be banned unless sufficient reasons are offered for it to be allowed, and often not even then.

There is a metric buttfuck load of reasons why semi automatic guns should be severely regulated. I'm willing to bet another reason will occur before February. And kindly fuck off with your imaginary "Allowing things should be default" bullshit. There are plenty of things that had legislation enacted almost the instant they came into existence. Let me know if it is too difficult for you to think up any examples, I'll be glad to help you out. First example off the bat - Fentanyl.

 

[Derec]

Tupelo, Mississippi actually. Here is an article.
Suspect in murder of Miss. convenience store clerk had faulty ankle monitor
The perp should have been in prison for probation violation on a previous burglary charge. The judge took it easy on him and ordered home confinement, but the ankle monitor malfunctioned for some reason and the perp decided to go out and rob some more, and add murder to his rap sheet as well.
It would have been a much better outcome if there was an armed customer to shoot him before he could shoot the clerk.

 

[Derec]

There is a metric buttfuck load of reasons why semi automatic guns should be severely regulated.

I am not as familiar with that unit of measurement as you seem to be.
How severely do you think they should be regulated? Are we talking reasonable regulation or onerous regulation that is tantamount to a de facto ban for civilian use? And do you think semiauto handguns should be subject to that regulation as well or only (certain) semiauto rifles?

I'm willing to bet another reason will occur before February.

Like what? A mass shooting?

First example off the bat - Fentanyl.

Fentanyl is a potent opioid. There are plenty of reasons why it should be strictly regulated.
There are also examples of governments banning things for no good reason - like weed or flavored vape juices or consensual sex work.
I do not think governments should ban things willy nilly.

 

[Derec]

Legally, he should be in the clear.

No, legally he either is or is not. Should doesn't apply to questions of law;

In English, "should" can also be used for statements of expectation. As in "we should have nice weather tomorrow".
Should (Modals) | Learn English
I expected him to be in the clear legally. Seeing the full video, I am no longer so sure actually. He may be in trouble for the last few shots.

And Texas law is morally deficient. But that's not a major shock.

I agree that the Texas law goes too far. Here, the perp was a clear and present danger to the employees and patrons. So I think even without the "recover stolen property at night" law, the patron would be in the clear for the first few shots at least, until the perp went down.

 

[Derec]

I guess I'll repeat myself yet again and point out all these "good guy with a gun" examples are still valid if the good guy was equipped with a lever action .30-30 or a Mossberg 500. Semi-autos with bump stocks (as they are now legal again) should never be in civilian hands.

What about semiautos without bump stocks?
The bump stock decision is a good example of why governing by executive orders is a flawed idea. Laws passed by Congress are always stronger than mere executive orders. Biden had a Dem majority Congress for two years. He could have pushed to codify Trump's EO into actual law.

 

[bilby]

No points for guessing why Marseille of all cities is so high on the list ...

Because it's a port city (lots of valuable portable stuff being moved around, high transient population, easy routes to shift stolen or contraband goods) that has had high levels of organised crime for centuries, and high levels of general crime for thousands of years?

 

[Derec]

Because it's a port city (lots of valuable portable stuff being moved around, high transient population, easy routes to shift stolen or contraband goods) that has had high levels of organised crime for centuries, and high levels of general crime for thousands of years?

NYC is a port city too (although Norfolk Houston has more gross tonnage)

So maybe it's the fact that Marseille is already halfway to being majority Islamic (i.e. 25% of Marseille residents are Muslim already and that percentage is rising rapidly because of both mass migration and insanely high birth rates among Muslims).

 

[Derec]

That is a legal definition which is not a moral nor logical one.

It's a legal concept though. And anyway it is a shorthand for "self defense and defense of others". Do you prefer that phrasing?

 

[Derec]

Not in my opinion.

You do not think the perp threatening people with deadly force affects the morality of shooting him?
I think your moral compass is in dire need of calibration.

 

[bilby]

Because it's a port city (lots of valuable portable stuff being moved around, high transient population, easy routes to shift stolen or contraband goods) that has had high levels of organised crime for centuries, and high levels of general crime for thousands of years?

Or maybe the fact that it is already halfway to being majority Islamic (i.e. 25% of Marseille residents are Muslim already and that percentage is rising rapidly because of both mass migration and insanely high birth rates among Muslims).

Your paranoid xenophobia is once again noted and derided.

I decline your invitation to draw vile conclusions from tenuous evidence that requires barbarous assumptions to be even remotely worrisome.

 

[Patooka]

I am not as familiar with that unit of measurement as you seem to be.

It's a 100% totally legitimate unit of measurement. You should totally look it up right after the meaning of the word obtuse.

How severely do you think they should be regulated? Are we talking reasonable regulation or onerous regulation that is tantamount to a de facto ban for civilian use? And do you think semiauto handguns should be subject to that regulation as well or only (certain) semiauto rifles?

You would call it a de facto ban. I, and the majority of the developed world, would call it common fucking sense. And before you ask, common fucking sense is vastly superior to common sense and is a totally legitimate designation. There is no legitimate reason to own a weapon with a semi automatic receiver. And reason for this is obvious. Like literally every other good faith piece of legislation ever enacted in the history of the human race, it is motivated solely on harm minimisation.

Like what? A mass shooting?

A mass shooting with a Mosin Nagant; 2 dead 3 wounded. A mass shooting with an Armalite that has after market attachments and custom 40 round mags; 20+ dead and many more wounded. Most people don't find this a difficult concept to get their heads around. What part of that math still confounds you?

 

[Derec]

Your paranoid xenophobia is once again noted and derided.

Not wanting Europe to be islamicized is not "xenophobia". But I guess that is an issue for another thread. For this thread, what is important is that European cities like London, Paris (and Marseille) are not some low-crime shangri-las where people do not have an occasion to have to defend themselves.