We need more people like this:

[heavycola]

Wow, there's people here actually defending the two criminal thugs.

So if someone wants to rob or harm you in any way, then what you should do is give them your wallet, or submit to their will. Whatever you do, don't defend yourself or the defenseless. Why, if you did that, you might hurt (or in this case, kill) the would be mugger/rapist/murderer.

Anyone who thinks what this man did is wrong is a friggin' coward.......

Luns - fair point.

Iz Man- the old dude acted within his legal rights. And i don't think anyone has defended the two criminal thugs, as you put it.
But like bertros sort of said, it is astonishing from our largely gun-free moral high ground (ok that was a wind-up) to see the shooting dead of two robbers applauded like this. That's all. Can't blame the guy for shooting, not excusing the robbers. Just astonished. As ever.

[Bertros Bertros]

Hmm made me think a little there b.k. I see your plight but I don't think meggy is being ignorant. He killed two men; that is murder. When you start to blur the lines, as this case is, you're on a slippery slope. Is it acceptable to shoot dead someone who threatens you with a knife? What if the guns were replicas and there was no 'real' threat to your life?

Its hard to explain how incomprehensible it is to me that you carry a gun when you go to town. Are you not scared of killing someone by accident? Its far from a land of liberty and freedom if you can't go to the shops without getting tooled up.

First of all, i find meggy to be an extremely intelligent young lady. The fact that she made an ignorant statement does not change my opinion of her - i've made a few myself. Secondly, i make a distinction between murder and self defense - silly me. Threatened with a knife? You mean like the terrorists on the planes with boxcutters? If they had had some southern boys on those planes, who would have killed them with their own boxcutters, would that have been murder? Someone pulled a knife on me once in the lower part of the French Quarter, and he abruptly changed his mind when i pulled my 9mm. If he had not, i would have killed him - would that make me a murderer? As far as liberty and freedom go, how does my having to go armed compromise such? Were the early Americans not free because they carried weapons? And finally, my father taught me how to fire a rifle and a pistol when i was 6 years old * * listens to the sharp gasps from the liberals * *, and i went through the NRA safety course when i was 12. I served with 10th Special Forces 68-70, and i don't foresee my shooting anyone by accident anytime soon.

There is undoubtedly a distinction between murder and self-defense when the defense is against your own murder, when the defence is against parting with a few dollars then its just plain old murder.

If you had killed the guy who pulled a knife on you, yes you would be a murderer, assuming he was trying to rob you, rather than just pulling a knife cause he wanted to kill you, which is a safe bet being as he ran straight off. The point is its very subjective as to whether an act is in defense and what the level of threat is. Thankfully you had the sense to not shoot first and find out later.

Please do not bring terrorism into this. It is bad enough our governments use it as justification for a war, please do not justify the killing of a couple of boys with it also, it is sickening. And no I am not suggesting terrorist acts are anything other than abhorent, I just disagree with using it as a blanket excuse for any kind of punitive measure.

Carrying a weapon in its own right does not imply a lack of freedom or liberty. But being scared enough of what may happen to you that you feel the need to does. Or do you just carry it because it makes you feel powerful? Did you get off on the power rush when your would be robber ran away at the sight of your 9mm. Be honest now...

And for the record I learnt to shoot with an air rifle at about 10, with a 22 rifle at 13 and with a semi-automatic 556 at about 15.

[Huckleberryhound]

As a Brit (Scottish, but still a proud Brit), i have to say

Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha

The Robbers got what was coming to them, and considering they entered the premises armed and ready to cause harm/death, they deserved what they got. If they had shot the old man, it'dve been a tragedy, but the old man got the drop on them, and in short "they picked the wrong old dude to f*ck with".

Well done, that's what i say.

[luns101]

As a Brit (Scottish, but still a proud Brit), i have to say

Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha

The Robbers got what was coming to them, and considering they entered the premises armed and ready to cause harm/death, they deserved what they got. If they had shot the old man, it'dve been a tragedy, but the old man got the drop on them, and in short "they picked the wrong old dude to f*ck with".

Well done, that's what i say.

[Iz Man]

There is undoubtedly a distinction between murder and self-defense when the defense is against your own murder, when the defence is against parting with a few dollars then its just plain old murder.

If you had killed the guy who pulled a knife on you, yes you would be a murderer, assuming he was trying to rob you, rather than just pulling a knife cause he wanted to kill you, which is a safe bet being as he ran straight off. The point is its very subjective as to whether an act is in defense and what the level of threat is. Thankfully you had the sense to not shoot first and find out later.

This is the most ridiculous thing I've heard in a while.
If someone pulls out a weapon, I'm supposed to ask:
"Excuse me sir, do you have the intent of just robbing me? Or do you wish to cause me bodily harm?"
Whomever chooses in brandishing a weapon for the use in a crime, assumes the liability of being shot dead where they stand.
Do you think the Police need to read the mind of a man running at them with a knife? Maybe he just wanted to scare them away, he really never meant to kill anyone.
The police make the assumption (rightfully so) that if a weapon is shown in a threatening manner, than it will be used; and they act accordingly.
So should all law abiding citizens. If you see someone being robbed, abused, raped, whatever...... you have the civic duty as a human being to stop it if you have the ability & means to do so.

[Bertros Bertros]

This is the most ridiculous thing I've heard in a while.

Your quite right, reading that back it is ridiculous. The point I was trying to make is that for every would be murderer killed there will be someone who had no intent to cause harm killed also. It is just impossible for me to convey how alien the concept of shooting someone dead as a part of your civic duty is. I refuse to accept that in a civilised society you should be allowed to play judge, jury and executioner as and when you please. The offer I made to b.k. is not extended to you Iz Man, stay in the US and shoot the f*ck out of anyone you percieve to be a threat like a good law abiding citizen. I just cancelled my US stop on the round the world ticket...

[OnlyAmbrose]

Do you think the other customer and the Subway employees are thankful the ex-marine was packin' heat?
I bet they are very thankful.
Semper-Fi.

Yes! We need more armed pensioners! Dementia + handguns = a winning combination!

Correction:
Honorable, Trustworthy, citizen + legal concealed weapon = dead scumbag

Thank God there are still people like him willing to use the rights given to him by the constitution. Don't think that the next group of flunkies in that area wanting to rob someplace won't be thinking of the consequence that befell the two robbers.

QFT @ luns & Iz.

Your quite right, reading that back it is ridiculous. The point I was trying to make is that for every would be murderer killed there will be someone who had no intent to cause harm killed also.

If you don't intend to cause harm DON'T BRANDISH A WEAPON.

It is just impossible for me to convey how alien the concept of shooting someone dead as a part of your civic duty is.

I wouldn't call it a civic duty. Some people have the ability to kill, and others don't.

I highly recommend a book written by an army Lt. Colonel entitled "On Killing". There's some fascinating information on just how seldom soldiers in past wars actually aimed to kill their enemies, or actually fired period. Great book, good read, very objective.

I refuse to accept that in a civilised society you should be allowed to play judge, jury and executioner as and when you please.

If someone was pointing a gun to your head and someone else was there in full power to save your life, I think you'd be all too willing to allow that someone else play judge, jury, and most especially executioner. I sure as hell would, not out of revenge, but out a desire to save my sorry hide.

stay in the US and shoot the f*ck out of anyone you percieve to be a threat like a good law abiding citizen.

That's a ridiculously narrowminded way of looking at this situation.

Would you argue the fact that two armed robbers are a threat?

[Bertros Bertros]

If you don't intend to cause harm DON'T BRANDISH A WEAPON.

It is just impossible for me to convey how alien the concept of shooting someone dead as a part of your civic duty is.

I wouldn't call it a civic duty. Some people have the ability to kill, and others don't.

I highly recommend a book written by an army Lt. Colonel entitled "On Killing". There's some fascinating information on just how seldom soldiers in past wars actually aimed to kill their enemies, or actually fired period. Great book, good read, very objective.

Thats the point exactly, not everyone who has a weapon is a killer especially when you live in a society where it is not only permissible and glorified, but considered your God given right to carry a weapon.

There is absolutely nothing to be admired in having the ability to kill. Heres the Publishers Weekly review of the book you refer to, thank you for providing a source which so wholly and compellingly backs my position:

Drawing on interviews, published personal accounts and academic studies, Grossman investigates the psychology of killing in combat. Stressing that human beings have a powerful, innate resistance to the taking of life, he examines the techniques developed by the military to overcome that aversion. His provocative study focuses in particular on the Vietnam war, revealing how the American soldier was "enabled to kill to a far greater degree than any other soldier in history." Grossman argues that the breakdown of American society, combined with the pervasive violence in the media and interactive video games, is conditioning our children to kill in a manner siimilar to the army's conditioning of soldiers: "We are reaching that stage of desensitization at which the infliction of pain and suffering has become a source of entertainment: vicarious pleasure rather than revulsion. We are learning to kill, and we are learning to like it."

As for being narrowminded that was quite deliberate...

[DirtyDishSoap]

Do you think the other customer and the Subway employees are thankful the ex-marine was packin' heat?
I bet they are very thankful.
Semper-Fi.

Yes! We need more armed pensioners! Dementia + handguns = a winning combination!

Correction:
Honorable, Trustworthy, citizen + legal concealed weapon = dead scumbag

I bet a few of em took some pictures after the shooting

[Stopper]

I don't think what the Marine here did can necessarily be equated to murder. There are degrees of culpability when someone kills, and knowing the facts of a particular incident is important, which none of us really do in this particular case.

Lauding someone as a hero for doing what the ex-Marine did is beyond the pale, though.

What I find really striking, and I'm not saying this simply to try and get a cheap shot in at Christians, is OnlyAmbrose's and luns101's attitude towards this. I can accept that a practicing Christian might say killing in the way of self-defence could be acceptable, but neither of you has even expressed the slightest bit of regret that a human being - one presumably capable of being "saved" - got killed in this incident.

And no, IzMan, the world doesn't need more people like Lovell. I would have thought Americans would think they needed fewer like him, given your absolutely massive annual gun homicide rate. What is it now? 15,000 a year or thereabouts?

[Norse]

I'm a Brit, but I think this is a great story.

In Britain, if someone where to Break into my house whilst I slept, and fall through the window onto my kitchen knives, I would be sued.

In Britain, if someone where to break into my house, and I retaliated in a way that caused harm to the criminal, then I would be put in prison.

The human rights laws within my country are mad, they criminalise the victims, and protect criminals.

And guess what? 25,000 prisoners in the UK will be let out early over the next year in order to relieve prison overcrowding.

I would love to have USA laws over here, I really would.

[DAZMCFC]

now being a brit i can see both sides of the story. in america they may well need to carry arms and that is their right. good luck to the old codger for shooting them, but being an ex-marine surely he should of been a better shot and just lamed them.

as for being a brit, i am quite glad i can go into manchester city centre for a bit of retail therapy knowing i do not have to carry a gun just in case some little scroat is going to mug me with a gun, because little scroats usually do not carry guns over here(maybe a knife,but we will cross that bridge if it ever pops up). over here, you are more likely to get dipped by some eastern europen than get mugged. less chance of getting caught dipping. plus there is no violence used. so yes i would rather have some scroat dip me than hold a knife to my throat. with all the cctv footage there is over here, there is a good chance they will be caught(touch wood). remember this everyone visiting city centres around britain, keep your hands on your money and cards.

[Bertros Bertros]

In Britain, if someone where to Break into my house whilst I slept, and fall through the window onto my kitchen knives, I would be sued.

Really? Can you quote the legal precedent which establishes this?

In Britain, if someone where to break into my house, and I retaliated in a way that caused harm to the criminal, then I would be put in prison.

I think this would be more accurate if it said "if someone were to break in to my house and I retaliated in a way disproportionate to that necessary to protect myself (not my property which after all should be insured against this eventuality) then I may be put in prison depending on the nature of my action". There is a legal precedent for this which was set in the case of Tony Martin I alluded to in a previous post.

And guess what? 25,000 prisoners in the UK will be let out early over the next year in order to relieve prison overcrowding.

The British custodial system is in a shit state, but that has nothing to do with whether or not we should tolerate vigilante law makers.

I would love to have USA laws over here, I really would.

Do you really want to feel like b.k. barunt that you need to take a gun into town to do your shopping?

[Norse]

God bless the EU!

[Norse]

Really? Can you quote the legal precedent which establishes this?

http://www.progressiveu.org/175036-is-s ... e-worth-it

paragraph 3

The British custodial system is in a shit state, but that has nothing to do with whether or not we should tolerate vigilante law makers.

I believe that certain vigilante action will be neccassary in the future. The police force are impotent.

Do you really want to feel like b.k. barunt that you need to take a gun into town to do your shopping?

Well, obviously not, because we do not permit gun usage here.

For example, if that same scenario happened in britain, but the ex-marine was an ex-karate expert, who kicks the f*ck out of both of the robbers leaving them in intensive care, that would be acceptable in my book.

[Stopper]

Really? Can you quote the legal precedent which establishes this?

http://www.progressiveu.org/175036-is-s ... e-worth-it

paragraph 3.

Bertros asks for a legal precedent for your original bizarre statement, and you link to a student's blog? An American student's blog? An American student who gives absolutely no details whatsover of the case in question, not even to say which country it took place in?

You just wasted 3 minutes of my dinner hour. You suck. And big-time.

I believe that certain vigilante action will be neccassary in the future. The police force are impotent.

Stop reading ditzy young American students' blogs. Or you'll fill your head with drivel like that.

[heavycola]

Really? Can you quote the legal precedent which establishes this?

http://www.progressiveu.org/175036-is-s ... e-worth-it

paragraph 3

I also cannot believe you linked that 'and then this one time...' drivel as, what, a legal precedent?

Also, why are your kitchen knives all pointing up towards the window? How are they kept in place? Don't you have drawers?

[Norse]

Bertros asks for a legal precedent for your original bizarre statement, and you link to a student's blog? An American student's blog? An American student who gives absolutely no details whatsover of the case in question, not even to say which country it took place in?

.

I stand extremely embarrased. I googled, this was the first thing I saw. I quickly opened it, and it looked like it might support my case.

But, I am 95% certain that there were some case such as this in britain.

[Iz Man]

The point I was trying to make is that for every would be murderer killed there will be someone who had no intent to cause harm killed also.

No intent to cause harm? You really need to explain this. How does someone not imply an intent to harm when brandishing a weapon in the commision of a violent crime? The whole point of the weapon is "do what I say or I will harm you with my weapon."

It is just impossible for me to convey how alien the concept of shooting someone dead as a part of your civic duty is. I refuse to accept that in a civilised society you should be allowed to play judge, jury and executioner as and when you please.

The concept of protecting yourself and the innocent from harm is foreign to you? Glad I don't live in your neighboorhood. No one here played judge, jury, or executioner. This man protected himself & the other defenseless innocent people there by killing a bad guy and wounding another.
This is a bad thing?
In a civilized society, one has the right, and the civic duty, to protect oneself and others from harm. It seems your hatred for America and guns in general is blinding you to what really happened here.

The offer I made to b.k. is not extended to you Iz Man, stay in the US and shoot the f*ck out of anyone you percieve to be a threat like a good law abiding citizen. I just cancelled my US stop on the round the world ticket...

A very mature statement in an adult discussion.
So here you're implying that the two thugs in the robbery were only perceived as threats. That they really didn't mean anyone any harm, they just wanted money..... ignorance is bliss, I guess.

Oh, BTW. I have circumnavigated the globe & been to over 40 countries, I'm glad I live in the U.S.
Where there are good people who would protect my wife & kids if I wasn't around. Or who would shoot & kill an armed assailant when they tried to do them harm.
I'll remember to stay away from your town. Apparently you don't believe in the concept of self-defense.

[Norse]

Oh, a little off subject, but I would like to point this out

Stopper says:

You suck. And big-time..

And then goes on to say:

Stop reading ditzy young American students' blogs. Or you'll fill your head with drivel like that.

Maybe you should think these comments through before you start throwing them about.

[MeDeFe]

He does have a point though (the second one).

[btownmeggy]

First of all, i find meggy to be an extremely intelligent young lady. The fact that she made an ignorant statement does not change my opinion of her - i've made a few myself.

I haven't really followed the conversation here to its end, but I feel that I must defend my brain's honor.

BK, though you may have the moral clarity to identify your opinion on murder and self-defense as the only correct one, and thus all other views as being "ignorant", you're standing against hundreds of years of political theorizing and debate which have established nothing more than that there seems to be no one correct answer.

Early modern statists distinguished between societies in which there is no coherent government and societies which DO have effectual governments. Many of these theorists concluded that in societies without governments, its reasonable to use self-defense at ANY time you feel in danger of a violent death. However, thought these same thinkers, if you live in a society which has offered up its rights to the use of force to the government, you are no longer responsible for your own defense--the government is! In fact, in the early 20th century, Max Weber, a man whose theories have influenced the course of civil development around the world, said that the state and its functionaries are the ONLY legitimate sources of violence (which effectively means that ALL other violence is CRIME.)

These state-centered points of view are only one of the many well-reasoned (and I would say far from ignorant) perspectives on self defense.

[Iz Man]

I don't think what the Marine here did can necessarily be equated to murder.

And no, IzMan, the world doesn't need more people like Lovell. I would have thought Americans would think they needed fewer like him, given your absolutely massive annual gun homicide rate. What is it now? 15,000 a year or thereabouts?

So we should have fewer people willing to defend themselves and/or others from violence?
If he rid the world of this scumbag with a knife instead of a firearm, would that make a difference?
No. The point is (once again; I'm repeating myself now) he stood up, faced an armed thug and put him down. Good riddance.
I don't feel sorry for the violent criminal, he got what he deserved.
I feel sorry for his family and their loss.

[heavycola]

No. The point is (once again; I'm repeating myself now) he stood up, faced an armed thug and put him down. Good riddance.
I don't feel sorry for the violent criminal, he got what he deserved.
I feel sorry for his family and their loss.

This is a very slippery slope. The guy was committing an armed robbery. Nobody had been shot, let alone killed, and yet he got what he deserved - death? Why did he deserve death? I mean do you support capital punishment for armed robbery? or for being violent? or for waving a gun around?


BTW excellent post meggy

[Iz Man]

No. The point is (once again; I'm repeating myself now) he stood up, faced an armed thug and put him down. Good riddance.
I don't feel sorry for the violent criminal, he got what he deserved.
I feel sorry for his family and their loss.

This is a very slippery slope. The guy was committing an armed robbery. Nobody had been shot, let alone killed, and yet he got what he deserved - death? Why did he deserve death? I mean do you support capital punishment for armed robbery? or for being violent? or for waving a gun around?

So he should've waited for someone to get shot before he acted?
Maybe you'd feel better if a patron or employee was killed along with the scumbag?
What do you think the Police are going to do if you pull out a gun? Wait for you to shoot?
Capital punishment for armed robbery? No.
Deadly force authorized during the commission of armed robbery?
Absolutely.