Family of armed robber outraged that store clerk shot and killed their brother in self-defense: 'Yes, he's robbing them — oh well!'

[Half-Life]

https://www.theblaze.com/news/famil...-in-self-defense-yes-hes-robbing-them-oh-well


"Yes, he's robbing them. Oh, well! Call the police, that's what you're supposed to do. You're not supposed to take matters into your own hands!" she continued.

Here's some daily stupidity, guys. A good guy with a gun stopped a robbery and the family is saying the clerk shouldn't have shot him! Holy Jesus! How dumb can people get these days? He went in WITH A GUN and POINTED IT AT THE CLERK! The clerk shot him dead.

Apparently, using guns in self-defense is evil now. This world is becoming insane! What say you leftists? I'm sure if this was a white guy robbing the store, you wouldn't say a peep about a white man being shot dead.

 

[Derec]

I mean, he has to rob people. How else he gonna get his money.

 

[barbos]

https://ohio.arrests.org/Arrests/Roosevelt_Rappley_42463678/

He was arrested on gun charges but not sentenced in august. Is it normal?

 

[zorq]

Apparently, using guns in self-defense is evil now. This world is becoming insane! What say you leftists? I'm sure if this was a white guy robbing the store, you wouldn't say a peep about a white man being shot dead.

Here is some news for you... Just because one idiot utters some idiocy doesn't make make it general knowledge, a popular consensus, or a universal rule. It is just one idiot's idiocy.

For example, take the last sentence in your post.

 

[Cheerful Charlie]

If an idiot enters a store and waves a gun around, getting shot is a distinct possibility. This is one of reality's cruel little rules. Father Darwin calls another one home.

 

[Patooka]

This happened two weeks ago. Why are we discussing it now?

I'm sure if this was a white guy robbing the store, you wouldn't say a peep about a white man being shot dead.

Hey genius, no one said a peep about this robber being shot dead either. No one has started a thread about this in the last fortnight except you. You are the one getting your panties in a twist. I guess you don't know leftists as well as you think. What a shock.

 

[laughing dog]

When one points a weapon at anyone, one is inviting violence. It doesn't mean that any resulting death is not unfortunate. Nor is uncommon for the family of a victim of a shooting (justified or not) to bemoan the death of their relative.

IMO, the notion that protection of property is a justification for killing a person means that property is more important than life. I find that notion repugnant.

 

[Keith&Co.]

This happened two weeks ago. Why are we discussing it now?

Halfie's not getting the rehsponse he wants innothrr threads, so he starts one th at's SURE to draw "leftidt" outrage....

 

[Half-Life]

When one points a weapon at anyone, one is inviting violence. It doesn't mean that any resulting death is not unfortunate. Nor is uncommon for the family of a victim of a shooting (justified or not) to bemoan the death of their relative.

IMO, the notion that protection of property is a justification for killing a person means that property is more important than life. I find that notion repugnant.

If you really believe that, then you just opened the door for large gangs to invade your home, steal whatever they want while they taunt you going, "Haha! You can't touch us! We're more important than your property!" as you watch them gather your stuff and then run out your front door into the night.

 

[laughing dog]

When one points a weapon at anyone, one is inviting violence. It doesn't mean that any resulting death is not unfortunate. Nor is uncommon for the family of a victim of a shooting (justified or not) to bemoan the death of their relative.

IMO, the notion that protection of property is a justification for killing a person means that property is more important than life. I find that notion repugnant.

If you really believe that, then you just opened the door for large gangs to invade your home, steal whatever they want while they taunt you going, "Haha! You can't touch us! We're more important than your property!" as you watch them gather your stuff and then run out your front door into the night.

I suppose if I did not call the police and/or take photographs, you'd have a point.

I can understand why a sociopath would think property is more important than human life, but I cannot understand why a Christian would think so.

 

[Half-Life]

When one points a weapon at anyone, one is inviting violence. It doesn't mean that any resulting death is not unfortunate. Nor is uncommon for the family of a victim of a shooting (justified or not) to bemoan the death of their relative.

IMO, the notion that protection of property is a justification for killing a person means that property is more important than life. I find that notion repugnant.

If you really believe that, then you just opened the door for large gangs to invade your home, steal whatever they want while they taunt you going, "Haha! You can't touch us! We're more important than your property!" as you watch them gather your stuff and then run out your front door into the night.

I suppose if I did not call the police and/or take photographs, you'd have a point.

I can understand why a sociopath would think property is more important than human life, but I cannot understand why a Christian would think so.

Even if you called the cops and didn't have enough time to take pictures, they could still steal stuff and be gone before the police arrive. Why do you think it's legal to kill someone if they're in your home? Because if it wasn't, you give the gangs the free reign to rob you.

 

[laughing dog]

I suppose if I did not call the police and/or take photographs, you'd have a point.

I can understand why a sociopath would think property is more important than human life, but I cannot understand why a Christian would think so.

Even if you called the cops and didn't have enough time to take pictures, they could still steal stuff and be gone before the police arrive. Why do you think it's legal to kill someone if they're in your home? Because if it wasn't, you give the gangs the free reign to rob you.

It is not necessarily legal to kill someone who is in your home.

And what is the babbling about "gangs"?

 

[Jason Harvestdancer]

When a robber is found in commission of a robbery, whether it is someone holding up a convenience store or a burglar in a house, that criminal is giving evidence of a threat to life by virtue of the act the criminal is involved in. Killing that criminal is an act of self defense, not killing over property.

It is not true that the criminal robbing the convenience store said "I am robbing you but I am not threatening you in any way." The threat is what enables the robbery. The killing is in response to the threat.

Attempts to make this about race, attempts to make this about "killing over property", those are both attempts to cover up a sentiment of "I value criminals over non-criminals".

 

[Patooka]

Anybody else think it is weird that the "Christian" who thinks abortion is murder because all life is sacred is totally fine with you killing someone in your house to protect your Blu-Ray collection?

 

[Jason Harvestdancer]

Anyone who thinks this is just about a Blu-Ray collection doesn't understand that the robber is presenting a violent threat and it is the violent threat that is being responded to violently.

 

[Patooka]

Anyone who thinks this is just about a Blu-Ray collection doesn't understand that the robber is presenting a violent threat and it is the violent threat that is being responded to violently.

a) Not what was said. The argument put forth was:

Even if you called the cops and didn't have enough time to take pictures, they could still steal stuff and be gone before the police arrive. Why do you think it's legal to kill someone if they're in your home? Because if it wasn't, you give the gangs the free reign to rob you.

No mention of violence. The individual who argued this is anti-abortion because their stance is life is sacred.
b) This is definitely a thread where absurd goalpost shifting is strongly encouraged. Even doctors say so.

 

[Half-Life]

Anybody else think it is weird that the "Christian" who thinks abortion is murder because all life is sacred is totally fine with you killing someone in your house to protect your Blu-Ray collection?

Who's life is the child in the womb threatening?

The robber in this topic literally HELD A GUN to the store clerk and the store clerk shot back. Your argument would work better if a robber came in with no gun or weapon and demanded money. At that point, it might be unnecessary to "shoot to kill" the robber. I would have more sympathy. But at the same time, nobody knows how scared or helpless the clerk feels. If the clerk has a gun and he keeps telling the robber to leave and the robber won't leave, then shooting might be justified. If the robber listens to the clerk and starts running out of the store, then shooting to kill is more likely not the answer. But, if the clerk still shot, you can make the justification, "I don't want him robbing anyone else if I let him run out that door."

It's like how in the Trayvon case, Zimmerman ignored the warning to wait for the police and ended up pursuing Trayvon. Trayvon then started bashing Zimmerman's head into the pavement, and then Zimmerman shot Trayvon in self-defense. You can make the argument, "Zimmerman is at fault because he shouldn't have followed him" but then at the same time you can say, "Zimmerman did not have a right to just allow Trayvon to keep bashing his head into the pavement until he died." Zimmerman was justified in shooting Trayvon at that point because he was being killed.

 

[Patooka]

So life is not sacred then. Good to know. There's a Jewish carpenter who lived in Palestine who disagrees with you.

 

[Jason Harvestdancer]

Anyone who thinks this is just about a Blu-Ray collection doesn't understand that the robber is presenting a violent threat and it is the violent threat that is being responded to violently.

a) Not what was said. The argument put forth was:

Even if you called the cops and didn't have enough time to take pictures, they could still steal stuff and be gone before the police arrive. Why do you think it's legal to kill someone if they're in your home? Because if it wasn't, you give the gangs the free reign to rob you.

No mention of violence. The individual who argued this is anti-abortion because their stance is life is sacred.
b) This is definitely a thread where absurd goalpost shifting is strongly encouraged. Even doctors say so.

This story is of someone robbing a store. This thread links to another thread which has a story about a burglar.

Robbing a store. If the robber robs the store while there is someone in the store, and it is anything other than trying to be subtle and shoplifting, the robber is threatening the store employee. It is that threat that the employee responds to.

Burglary. If the burglar robs the home while there is someone in the home, then burglar is threatening the home owner. It is that threat that the home owner responds to.

If you think you can stand by and take pictures of your stuff while the burglar carts it off, you're nuts.

 

[Bronzeage]

When one points a weapon at anyone, one is inviting violence. It doesn't mean that any resulting death is not unfortunate. Nor is uncommon for the family of a victim of a shooting (justified or not) to bemoan the death of their relative.

IMO, the notion that protection of property is a justification for killing a person means that property is more important than life. I find that notion repugnant.

If you really believe that, then you just opened the door for large gangs to invade your home, steal whatever they want while they taunt you going, "Haha! You can't touch us! We're more important than your property!" as you watch them gather your stuff and then run out your front door into the night.

I guess this depends upon how many gang members and how many bullets you have, right. Of course, in large gang school, they teach that shooting first is the way to deal with residential Rambos, so opening the door might not be the best strategy. I'm pretty sure home defense school spends a lot of time on not opening the door.

If it's worth killing someone to keep your stuff, there must be someone who thinks it's worth killing you to get it. The real problem here is that there's no such thing as "defending yourself with a gun." Guns don't work that way. They are an offensive weapon. Unless you use it like Wonder Woman's magic bracelets to block the bullets, all you can do is attack someone with intent to kill. Even the best intentioned gunshot can be fatal. So, feel free to blast away. You're sure to clip a few of them before one of them gets you. After all, it's the body count that determines whether or not you won the gunfight, not whether or not you survived it.

This world being what it is, the most common scenario when an armed robber kills the cashier, is when a former employee returns to rob his former employer. This is also when the victim is least likely to shoot first.