Pizza Hut Employee Shoots and Kills Attempted Robber
200 replies, posted
[B]Storms into thread brandishing a .44 Magnum revolver[/B]
"I am the victim here! Your lives are become forfeit."
[B]Begins gunning down every poster[/B]
[B]Blowing them away, one by one[/B]
"I WILL NOT let the petty cash of my corporate employer fall into the wrong hands!"
[B]Paces around the thread, executing any survivors of the initial onslaught[/B]
"I AM AN AMERICAN! THIS IS MY RIGHT! WITH THE POWER OF FREEDOM, I'VE WON!"
[I]As I walk off into the sunset
I turn my head and see the face
Of Lady Liberty, poised with grace
Cheering me on, as I reload my gun
I am proud to be an American[/I]
[highlight](User was banned for this post ("Shitposting" - Pascall))[/highlight]
[QUOTE=Cyke Lon bee;51284950]Depends state to state, but generally he would be in the clear as far as the law is concerned.. Generally, if someone breaks into your home or even place of work and they don't leave when you ask them to leave, you're in the clear to use lethal force.[/QUOTE]
Wow, that's retarded. By that logic you could kill anybody who protests peacefully on a company's property. Heck you could even kill a kid who broke into your yard to retrieve a ball he was playing with.
Wouldn't lethal threat towards you be required for you to actually kill someone?
[QUOTE=_Axel;51291261]Wow, that's retarded. By that logic you could kill anybody who protests peacefully on a company's property. Heck you could even kill a kid who broke into your yard to retrieve a ball he was playing with.
Wouldn't lethal threat towards you be required for you to actually kill someone?[/QUOTE]
Yeah I'm pretty sure they have to be a physical threat. You can't just kill someone because they sat on your porch and won't get up.
[QUOTE=_Axel;51291261]Wow, that's retarded. By that logic you could kill anybody who protests peacefully on a company's property. Heck you could even kill a kid who broke into your yard to retrieve a ball he was playing with.
Wouldn't lethal threat towards you be required for you to actually kill someone?[/QUOTE]
Under Castle doctrine the threat comes from breaking into someone's house. That could be attempting or successfully forcing open the door, windows, or walls. The intruder has to use some sort of force that makes it very obvious their felonious intentions. I don't know about you, but the kids in my neighborhood don't break down my door to retrieve toy balls. They use the doorbell and ask like normal, sane, people do.
[QUOTE=_Axel;51291261]Wow, that's retarded. By that logic you could kill anybody who protests peacefully on a company's property. Heck you could even kill a kid who broke into your yard to retrieve a ball he was playing with.
Wouldn't lethal threat towards you be required for you to actually kill someone?[/QUOTE]
I've never heard of it applying to workplaces, but as Kigen mentioned, the idea behind Castle Doctrine is that if you wake up in the middle of the night and someone's in your living room, the law figures that they're almost certainly up to no good. It only relaxes the requirement to positively identify an imminent threat to your life before responding with force, because the assumption is that someone intruding in your home is implicitly a threat and it's unreasonable to expect a homeowner to be able to identify a weapon in the dark before using force.
It's not carte blanche to kill anyone stepping over your property line like you're making it sound. People do get convicted of murder when they do things like execute visibly unarmed intruders, kill an intruder trying to flee their home, shoot a neighbor in broad daylight during a dispute, stuff like that where the homeowner is clearly in the wrong.
[QUOTE=Kigen;51291369]Under Castle doctrine the threat comes from breaking into someone's house. That could be attempting or successfully forcing open the door, windows, or walls. The intruder has to use some sort of force that makes it very obvious their felonious intentions. I don't know about you, but the kids in my neighborhood don't break down my door to retrieve toy balls. They use the doorbell and ask like normal, sane, people do.[/QUOTE]
Can't really call kids "normal, sane people", they often do dumb shit because they don't really know any better. I've seen kids scale walls and fences several times for something as dumb as playing some kind of game.
Also the original post says it applies to corporate property too, some kind of activist for example who breaks into one by forcing something open isn't necessarily a physical threat, so the idea that breaking into a place shows intention to harm is baseless and certainly doesn't warrant lethal force.
[QUOTE=Svinnik;51285168]people generally dont murder out of nowhere
Which is more likely in terms of a robber wanting to murder someone:
1: That he just decides to kill the clerk for no reason, escalating a robbery charge to a murder charge for essentially no reason.
2: That his friend got fatally shot by the clerk.
I think that the latter is more likely to get the clerk murdered.[/QUOTE]
My grandfather was working at a gas station and was told by a man with a gun to open the cash register, but then he was shot. The man only came in to kill and used robbering as a distraction. Luckily my grandfather was killed.
No rational person is going to rob a store, so you cannot use logic when it comes to people with a gun threatening you. There is no way of knowing if these robbers would have been murderers.
[QUOTE=_Axel;51291470]Can't really call kids "normal, sane people", they often do dumb shit because they don't really know any better. I've seen kids scale walls and fences several times for something as dumb as playing some kind of game.
Also the original post says it applies to corporate property too, some kind of activist for example who breaks into one by forcing something open isn't necessarily a physical threat, so the idea that breaking into a place shows intention to harm is baseless and certainly doesn't warrant lethal force.[/QUOTE]
Yards and corporate property don't actually apply to castle doctrine. They need to actually be physically breaking into your domicile. That means the door/window needs to be locked and they need to purposefully bust it to get inside. At which point once they set foot inside you're allowed to use lethal force. If you don't want to get shot don't break into someone's home in the middle of the night.
[QUOTE=_Axel;51291261]Wow, that's retarded. By that logic you could kill anybody who protests peacefully on a company's property. Heck you could even kill a kid who broke into your yard to retrieve a ball he was playing with.
Wouldn't lethal threat towards you be required for you to actually kill someone?[/QUOTE]
No, not at all. A person has to be a threat to you, or you have to have a reasonable suspicion that that person is a threat. A kid getting his ball or a guy holding a sign is not a threat at all. But if a guy breaks into your house at night, then thats reasonable suspicion.
Youd go to jail quick if you shot a dood cause he stepped in your yard
[QUOTE=abcpea;51291218][B]Storms into thread brandishing a .44 Magnum revolver[/B]
"I am the victim here! Your lives are become forfeit."
[B]Begins gunning down every poster[/B]
[B]Blowing them away, one by one[/B]
"I WILL NOT let the petty cash of my corporate employer fall into the wrong hands!"
[B]Paces around the thread, executing any survivors of the initial onslaught[/B]
"I AM AN AMERICAN! THIS IS MY RIGHT! WITH THE POWER OF FREEDOM, I'VE WON!"
[I]As I walk off into the sunset
I turn my head and see the face
Of Lady Liberty, poised with grace
Cheering me on, as I reload my gun
I am proud to be an American[/I][/QUOTE]
And you foreigners wonder why americans disregard brits/australians in gun threads....
You're also going to get sued out of your ass regardless if it was justified or not. So using lethal force should by no means be taken lightly. Basically only in a situation where you will most certainly be killed if you didn't kill first. Because your life is still going to change forever afterwords. If you don't have a criminal lawsuit, you'll have a civil one from the family of the deceased. Or both. You'll have to pay something during these suits, even if you win. Your life will be full of stress, and people will judge you. You'll become a "That guy."
So make sure you're sure as hell making the right decision before defending yourself with lethal force.
/stuff learned while in a LTC class.
Pizza hut will surely reward him for his bravery! /s
What a guy tho, risking his life over some corporations money, that is heroic and he does deserve a lot more credit imo
[QUOTE=ColdAsRice;51291674]And you foreigners wonder why americans disregard brits/australians in gun threads....[/QUOTE]
I disregard more Americans personally
[QUOTE=OvB;51291684]You're also going to get sued out of your ass regardless if it was justified or not. So using lethal force should by no means be taken lightly. Basically only in a situation where you will most certainly be killed if you didn't kill first. Because your life is still going to change forever afterwords. If you don't have a criminal lawsuit, you'll have a civil one from the family of the deceased. Or both. You'll have to pay something during these suits, even if you win. Your life will be full of stress, and people will judge you. You'll become a "That guy."
So make sure you're sure as hell making the right decision before defending yourself with lethal force.
/stuff learned while in a LTC class.[/QUOTE]
It certainly doesn't help when a disturbingly high number of people think that carrying or using a firearm for self defense makes you "a gun toting monkey wanna-be macho man". If people made offensive sweeping generalizations like this towards any other large demographic, it would be called bigotry.
[QUOTE=joshthesmith;51291742]that is heroic and he does deserve a lot more credit imo[/QUOTE]
wouldn't call killing heroic
needless killing even less so
[QUOTE=Saturn V;51291764]wouldn't call killing heroic
needless killing even less so[/QUOTE]
Only saying heroic because he risked his life, needless killing indeed but in a life or death situations sometimes the wrong choice is the one you make
[QUOTE=Saturn V;51291764]wouldn't call killing heroic
needless killing even less so[/QUOTE]
He didnt kill the guy in cold blood though? He defended his life and the lives of his coworkers. I wouldnt say thats needless.
If a dood walks into a restaurant or anywhere really with a gun drawn, he his a very blatant threat to your life.
[QUOTE=plunger435;51291545]Yards and corporate property don't actually apply to castle doctrine. They need to actually be physically breaking into your domicile. That means the door/window needs to be locked and they need to purposefully bust it to get inside. At which point once they set foot inside you're allowed to use lethal force. If you don't want to get shot don't break into someone's home in the middle of the night.[/QUOTE]
What if the robber enters the house without actually busting anything, through having a key double or something like that, does that make it illegal to shoot them? This really seems oddly specific.
Also people keep mentioning "in the middle of the night", does time of day matter?
[QUOTE=_Axel;51291833]What if the robber enters the house without actually busting anything, through having a key double or something like that, does that make it illegal to shoot them? This really seems oddly specific.
Also people keep mentioning "in the middle of the night", does time of day matter?[/QUOTE]
Self-defence would apply, if someone is threatening your life you are well within your rights to defend yourself. Time of day doesn't matter, no idea why that was mentioned
[QUOTE=_Axel;51291833]What if the robber enters the house without actually busting anything, through having a key double or something like that, does that make it illegal to shoot them? This really seems oddly specific.
Also people keep mentioning "in the middle of the night", does time of day matter?[/QUOTE]
I don't know maybe you could actually read up on the subject you're going to argue about so much before being completely pedantic about it?
If you're using a key double to open a lock you're still breaking into the house, and the home owner had still made an effort to secure it. So yes it counts.
Do you legally own/lease the property?
Are they breaking into said secured property?
Great you're good to go.
[QUOTE=_Axel;51291833]What if the robber enters the house without actually busting anything, through having a key double or something like that, does that make it illegal to shoot them? This really seems oddly specific.
Also people keep mentioning "in the middle of the night", does time of day matter?[/QUOTE]
If someone is entering your house unlawfully, be it breaking and entering, or having a key, you have the right to defend your property.
Time of day does not matter.
[QUOTE=plunger435;51291847]I don't know maybe you could actually read up on the subject you're going to argue about so much before being completely pedantic about it?
If you're using a key double to open a lock you're still breaking into the house, and the home owner had still made an effort to secure it. So yes it counts.[/QUOTE]
Oh I'm sorry if I take what you say as truth which somehow results in me being pedantic?
You said they need to "purposefully [I]bust it[/I] to get inside" which implies breaking the locking mechanism, which is why I asked for clarification. Not my fault if you don't care about being consistent in your explanations.
[QUOTE=joshthesmith;51291742]Pizza hut will surely reward him for his bravery! /s
What a guy tho, risking his life over some corporations money, that is heroic and he does deserve a lot more credit imo[/QUOTE]
Yeah, I'm sure the first thing he thought after having a gun pointed in his direction was "oh shit, better risk my life for someone else's insured money!" and not a metric shitload of adrenaline combined with the thought of "is this person going to shoot me?"
It's entirely possible the employee may have overreacted to the situation and shot the robber out of fear, but we don't know the whole story of what happened exactly in the restaurant. To immediately say that the employee wanted to "play Rambo" or "be a hero" is a completely unfair assumption and is also quite an offensive generalization about someone who is supposed to be the victim in this crime. It's borderline victim blaming at this point.
[QUOTE=_Axel;51291865]Oh I'm sorry if I take what you say as truth which somehow results in me being pedantic?
You said they need to "purposefully [I]bust it[/I] to get inside" which implies breaking the locking mechanism, which is why I asked for clarification. Not my fault if you don't care about being consistent in your explanations.[/QUOTE]
I said they needed to be breaking in, then gave an example, not my fault you chose to purposefully misconstrue it instead of doing research. You're the one who can't be bothered to simply look up any state statute on home defense, which requires about five seconds to lookup.
Since you're so lazy I went and did it for you.
[url]http://www.legislature.mi.gov/(S(x1auomsho5cy3ravjncka3bj))/mileg.aspx?page=GetObject&objectname=mcl-780-951[/url]
Michigan
[url]http://www.statutes.legis.state.tx.us/SOTWDocs/PE/htm/PE.9.htm[/url]
Texas
[url]http://www.azleg.gov//FormatDocument.asp?inDoc=/legtext/47leg/2r/laws/0199.htm&Session_ID=83[/url]
Alabama
Now you can get educated before you make more erroneous claims.
[QUOTE=AlbertWesker;51291884]Yeah, I'm sure the first thing he thought after having a gun pointed in his direction was "oh shit, better risk my life for someone else's insured money!" and not a metric shitload of adrenaline combined with the thought of "is this person going to shoot me?"
It's entirely possible the employee may have overreacted to the situation and shot the robber out of fear, but we don't know the whole story of what happened exactly in the restaurant. To immediately say that the employee wanted to "play Rambo" or "be a hero" is a completely unfair assumption and is also quite an offensive generalization about someone who is supposed to be the victim in this article. It's borderline victim blaming at this point.[/QUOTE]
I should have made it more clear about the fact I think he risked losing his life over indeed insured money and it was heroic since he has no reward because of it. I never said he played Rambo at all that is putting words in my mouth, I am saying he was brave that is all
[QUOTE=plunger435;51291892][U]I said they needed to be breaking in, then gave an example[/U], not my fault you chose to purposefully misconstrue it instead of doing research.[/QUOTE]
Uh, no? Do you read what you write before posting?
[QUOTE=plunger435;51291545]Yards and corporate property don't actually apply to castle doctrine. They need to actually be physically breaking into your domicile. [B]That means the door/window needs to be locked and they need to purposefully bust it to get inside.[/B] At which point once they set foot inside you're allowed to use lethal force. If you don't want to get shot don't break into someone's home in the middle of the night.[/QUOTE]
That's not an example you gave, that's [B]an elaboration on what breaking in supposedly means.[/B] What you've written implies it's a requirement to bust open a door/windows for the statute to apply.
Now get off your high horse and realize that the reason I was mistaken was because I took your explanation verbatim. I didn't look up official laws because I assumed, wrongly, that your description was accurate, not because I'm "lazy".
[QUOTE=_Axel;51291928]Uh, no? Do you read what you write before posting?
That's not an example you gave, that's [B]an elaboration on what breaking in supposedly means.[/B] What you've written implies it's a requirement to bust open a door/windows for the statute to apply.
Now get off your high horse and realize that the reason I was mistaken was because I took your explanation verbatim. I didn't look up official laws because I assumed, wrongly, that your description was accurate, not because I'm "lazy".[/QUOTE]
No you were clearly trying to be pedantic, or do you want me to believe you actually think breaking in with a forged key doesn't actually count as breaking in, like its some kind of clever legal loophole you discovered.
[QUOTE=joshthesmith;51291902]I should have made it more clear about the fact I think he risked losing his life over indeed insured money and it was heroic since he has no reward because of it. I never said he played Rambo at all that is putting words in my mouth, I am saying he was brave that is all[/QUOTE]
Oops, sorry I thought your whole post was trying to be sarcastic and not just the first part. It's just a lot of people seem to have that sort of mindset lately to the point where that one "Rambo" bit has almost become a meme.
But that wasn't what you were trying to say, so my bad.
[QUOTE=AlbertWesker;51291958]Oops, sorry I thought your whole post was trying to be sarcastic and not just the first part. It's just a lot of people seem to have that sort of mindset lately to the point where that one "Rambo" bit has almost become a meme.
But that wasn't what you were trying to say, so my bad.[/QUOTE]
It's cool man glad to see we are on the same page! :v:
[QUOTE=plunger435;51291948]No you were clearly trying to be pedantic, or do you want me to believe you actually think breaking in with a forged key doesn't actually count as breaking in?[/QUOTE]
Wouldn't be the first time that a law is weirdly specific? I'm sorry that I took your word for it I guess. In any case I don't really see the point in you trying to retroactively prove my being pedantic even though you based that impression off misinterpreting what you wrote yourself.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.