Pizza Hut Employee Shoots and Kills Attempted Robber
200 replies, posted
[QUOTE=plunger435;51291948]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]
[QUOTE=_Axel;51291970]Wouldn't be the first time that a law is weirdly specific?[/QUOTE]
Since you believe that maybe you should go read those links I posted before then.
[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]
Because it still doesn't seem like your understanding is any better than before.
[QUOTE=plunger435;51291988]Because it still doesn't seem like your understanding is any better than before.[/QUOTE]
Why? Because I showed that the reason why I asked the question which made you go ballistic on me in the first place was because you made a mistake?
Never said anything about my understanding of the law since then.
[QUOTE=_Axel;51292000]Why? Because I showed that the reason why I asked the question which made you go ballistic on me in the first place was because you made a mistake?
Never said anything about my understanding of the law since then.[/QUOTE]
You're still completely avoiding the actual topic.
[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]
This is your post I replied to. Note that last sentence. Now read the links I provided and see why that's the case after all.
If you're not actually going to read any of that, or even reply in the context of your previous posts, why keep arguing?
[QUOTE=plunger435;51292009]This is your post I replied to. Note that last sentence. Now read the links I provided and see why that's the case after all.[/QUOTE]
No need, the other posters already clarified that while you were accusing me. I'll look into those if I need more info, though, thank you for those.
[QUOTE]If you're not actually going to read any of that, or even reply in the context of your previous posts, why keep arguing?[/QUOTE]
Because you accused me of being pedantic and keep trying to find reasons to do so despite me pointing out where the misunderstanding stemmed from?
[QUOTE=_Axel;51292026]No need, the other posters already clarified that[/QUOTE]
Yeah, me.
[QUOTE=plunger435;51291847]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]
[QUOTE=plunger435;51292086]Yeah, me.[/QUOTE]
Among others, yes. What's your point?
[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]
"Middle of the night" is used as an example because thats stereotypically when a break in would occur when a person is at home abd able to defend themselves.
As its been stated 2 dozen times, it varies between state to state. In my state of North Dakota, if a person breaks in and you catch them walking out with your TV, and you point a gun at them and tell them to stop, unless they attack you or look lile theyre about to, you cant fire on them. If they laugh at you and continue our with your television, then you cant fire on them. Thats not to say you cant tackle them or use another means of force, but you cant use lethal force.
But in the state of Texas, if you walk into your childs room and find a man molesting them, youre within full bounds of the law to shoot and kill them. Castle Doctrine laws vary state to state do theres no black and white picture to go off of.
But in most cases, the person needs to be a threat or you need to have a reasonable perception of them being a threat for you to defend yourself.
Look at the base definition for "defense". Is shooting a guy in any scenario you come up with "defense"? If the answers no, then you would probably be tried for murder. The castle Doctrine isnt in place so people can get away with murder, its so people who defend themselves and their homes dont get put away for murder.
[QUOTE=Cyke Lon bee;51292126]"Middle of the night" is used as an example because thats stereotypically when a break in would occur when a person is at home abd able to defend themselves.
As its been stated 2 dozen times, it varies between state to state. In my state of North Dakota, if a person breaks in and you catch them walking out with your TV, and you point a gun at them and tell them to stop, unless they attack you or look lile theyre about to, you cant fire on them. If they laugh at you and continue our with your television, then you cant fire on them. Thats not to say you cant tackle them or use another means of force, but you cant use lethal force.
But in the state of Texas, if you walk into your childs room and find a man molesting them, youre within full bounds of the law to shoot and kill them. Castle Doctrine laws vary state to state do theres no black and white picture to go off of.
But in most cases, the person needs to be a threat or you need to have a reasonable perception of them being a threat for you to defend yourself.
Look at the base definition for "defense". Is shooting a guy in any scenario you come up with "defense"? If the answers no, then you would probably be tried for murder. The castle Doctrine isnt in place so people can get away with murder, its so people who defend themselves and their homes dont get put away for murder.[/QUOTE]
Tackle them, get them to throw a punch, then you can shoot because they attacked you.
Or hell, if you're the only witness, just say they did.
There are way too many loopholes in laws we have.
[QUOTE=FlakTheMighty;51292189]Tackle them, get them to throw a punch, then you can shoot because they attacked you.
Or hell, if you're the only witness, just say they did.
There are way too many loopholes in laws we have.[/QUOTE]
Baiting them to attack or steal from you is criminal, and do you really want to cause a scuffle when you have a gun in your hand or on your person? Its pretty easy to tell when this happens. If youre not able to subdue someone under your own strength, then you shouldnt attack them.
And forensics can tell a lot about the position a person was in when you shot them, including if you shot them in the back or shot them with their hands in the air. Its also tough to keep your story consistent in that situation.
Furthermore, why kill a man you dont need to kill? Why have that on your conscious? Most people dont sit in their lazyboy with a shotgun on their lap just hoping someone breaks in.
Shit like this has happened in the past and the persons claiming self defensed were convicted for murder because of it.
[QUOTE=FlakTheMighty;51292189]Tackle them, get them to throw a punch, then you can shoot because they attacked you.
Or hell, if you're the only witness, just say they did.
There are way too many loopholes in laws we have.[/QUOTE]
wow that is totally not fucked up!
[QUOTE=Saturn V;51292218]wow that is totally not fucked up![/QUOTE]
It happened in my ex's neighborhood, just giving off an example of how fucked stuff is.
[QUOTE=FlakTheMighty;51292232]It happened in my ex's neighborhood, just giving off an example of how fucked stuff is.[/QUOTE]
Then is it really a loophole if they caught the guy?
He wasn't caught until he confessed.
Guess killing someone over something that can easily be replaced is pretty heavy on your conscience, who would have guessed.
[QUOTE=FlakTheMighty;51292270]He wasn't caught until he confessed.
Guess killing someone over something that can easily be replaced is pretty heavy on your consciousness, who would have guessed.[/QUOTE]
I think you're misunderstanding, if it's s really a loophole that would have meant he couldn't be tried even if he did confess. If he was successfully tried then it can't be a loophole since that implies it would be legal regardless.
[QUOTE=Cyke Lon bee;51292126]"Middle of the night" is used as an example because thats stereotypically when a break in would occur when a person is at home abd able to defend themselves[/QUOTE]
This is getting off topic, but this has actually been one of those dumb questions that's always bugged me.
Why would you break into a home in the middle of the night? Isn't it safer, particularly given police response times, to just break in for a smash and grab in the middle of the day? You know, when people are at work/school, or otherwise have a reason to [i]not[/i] be home?
[QUOTE=Zephyrs;51292301]This is getting off topic, but this has actually been one of those dumb questions that's always bugged me.
Why would you break into a home in the middle of the night? Isn't it safer, particularly given police response times, to just break in for a smash and grab in the middle of the day? You know, when people are at work/school, or otherwise have a reason to [I]not[/I] be home?[/QUOTE]
Majority of break ins happen in the day so criminals are aware of that, it's just that pop culture always portrays it happening at night because it's more scary.
[QUOTE=KillRay;51291747]I disregard more Americans personally[/QUOTE]
Nice try, but you and a couple others inevitably show up in these threads every time, as if somehow you posting in a garry's mod thread will somehow change American politics through the amazing power of your ego.
None of which apply to the current scenario anyway, as there are rather scant details as to what actually happened, and that's the amin point of contention. Lots of claims oh well the shooter was _____, and the robber was ______, we don't know any of that shit other than they were both armed.
[QUOTE=Zephyrs;51292301]This is getting off topic, but this has actually been one of those dumb questions that's always bugged me.
Why would you break into a home in the middle of the night? Isn't it safer, particularly given police response times, to just break in for a smash and grab in the middle of the day? You know, when people are at work/school, or otherwise have a reason to [i]not[/i] be home?[/QUOTE]
Most break ins do happen during the day, but home invasions and the like almost are always at night. Obviously night time is thought to be better because people are sleeping and yada yada yada, but daytime is better really.
[QUOTE=Map in a box;51289895]good thing I didn't say they didn't in my post then right? there's a difference between defending yourself and putting everyone at risk though[/QUOTE]
You could flip this and say that when cops shoot they are also endangering others too.
[editline]1st November 2016[/editline]
[QUOTE=Map in a box;51290145]Pulling a gun to people with guns is just going to make those people angry and if you don't manage to take them down before you its not unlikely that they won't make more victims.
[editline]31st October 2016[/editline]
I'm not saying what he did was wrong, but I don't want to say what he did was right either.[/QUOTE]
Probably best to not say anything then?
[QUOTE=UK Bohemian;51292507]You could flip this and say that when cops shoot they are also endangering others too.
[editline]1st November 2016[/editline]
Probably best to not say anything then?[/QUOTE]
If you have a problem with me or anyone else sharing their opinion, its probably best not to say anything.
[QUOTE=Map in a box;51292619]If you have a problem with me or anyone else sharing their opinion, its probably best not to say anything.[/QUOTE]
Why would I have a problem?
[QUOTE=catbarf;51288803]If 'drawing a gun just makes things worse!' like people in this thread are claiming, then the best way to 'protect' would be for a cop to not draw. Yet that's not standard procedure- why?[/QUOTE]
I know I'm a bit late, but there are pretty stark differences between cops and civilians.
For example: Criminals want to avoid arrests, and might in some (or many, whatever) cases be willing to use lethal force to do so. When a criminal has drawn a gun in front of a police man, whose job it is to arrest him, he, A, knows he has a gun, and B, he knows that his job is to get him arrested - both pretty good reasons to get rid of him. On the other hand, a store clerk's job isn't to stop criminals, and chances are he probably doesn't have a gun - which is a good reason for the criminal to simply ignore him as long as he doesn't create any problems.
Drawing a gun might be the right choice in the police man's situation (I'm gonna guess there are some exceptions), but for the store clerk it might simply be making you a target when you weren't one before.
[QUOTE=FlakTheMighty;51292189]Tackle them, get them to throw a punch, then you can shoot because they attacked you.
Or hell, if you're the only witness, just say they did.
There are way too many loopholes in laws we have.[/QUOTE]
You not understanding the relevant law does not constitute a loophole. You can't legally use lethal force unless lethal force has already been threatened against you. If someone throws a punch at you in a bar and you pull a gun and shoot them, you'll be tried for murder. If you incite someone to attack you with a knife and then shoot them, you still might be tried for murder. If you shoot someone in legitimate self-defense after they incite the conflict and threaten deadly force, [I]you still might be tried for murder[/I]. Castle doctrine doesn't change any of this, it only reduces the burden of evidence on the defendant to demonstrate self-defense (which is an [i]affirmative defense[/i], IE something you need to prove, and you're essentially considered guilty until proven innocent). The only people who think there is legitimately any kind of easy way to legally kill someone in this country has never dealt with the legal system.
[QUOTE=Nookyava;51284939]I used to be a shift manager at a Pizza Hut and I can confirm that they drill it into you with handbooks, and bi-annual online training that you are to comply with everything and hide. They state to never engage the robber, so very likely the employee will be fired. I would hope not personally though, as he did a brave thing there.
Pizza Hut is weird with their rules/company laws, and can randomly be extremely strict, or slap on the wrist weak.[/QUOTE]
Maybe it's different in America, but 99% of businesses will tell you to comply 100% even if the person threatening doesn't have a weapon because it's generally safer for everybody
[editline]1st November 2016[/editline]
[QUOTE=ColdAsRice;51291674]And you foreigners wonder why americans disregard brits/australians in gun threads....[/QUOTE]
Because being from a different country means you can't discuss gun laws right? I forgot America is the only place in the world that exists
[QUOTE=HAKKAR!!!;51293518]
[editline]1st November 2016[/editline]
Because being from a different country means you can't discuss gun laws right? I forgot America is the only place in the world that exists[/QUOTE]
He was responding to abcpea's shitpost-tier garbage though, which always seems to happen in these threads and I don't blame people for getting sick of it.
[editline]1st November 2016[/editline]
Doesn't make it right to disregard anyone who's not American either, input from all backgrounds should at least be given the decency to be considered imo
[QUOTE=HAKKAR!!!;51293518]Maybe it's different in America, but 99% of businesses will tell you to comply 100% even if the person threatening doesn't have a weapon because it's generally safer for everybody[/quote]
It's the same in the US. The case described in the article is really an anomaly.
[QUOTE=HAKKAR!!!;51293518]
Because being from a different country means you can't discuss gun laws right? I forgot America is the only place in the world that exists[/QUOTE]
When you're shitposting and being a sarcastic ass hole and not taking a debate seriously, it's hard to not disregard someone.
[QUOTE=HAKKAR!!!;51293518]
Because being from a different country means you can't discuss gun laws right? I forgot America is the only place in the world that exists[/QUOTE]
That was a shitpost, not a "discussion"
[QUOTE=geel9;51294412]That was a shitpost, not a "discussion"[/QUOTE]
He's known to be a shitposter regardless of where he lives and what he discusses, I don't think it's fair to disregard brits/aussies opinions because of a single person
[editline]2nd November 2016[/editline]
On topic with the OP article though
I'm not entirely sure he should have done what he did but I don't think he's a bad guy for doing it, I can completely understand [b]why[/b] he did it even if I think it was the wrong move.
He's not like that one facepuncher that was proud about shooting somebody with a shotgun in self defence and would brag about how many people he killed in self defence
[QUOTE=HAKKAR!!!;51294480]He's known to be a shitposter regardless of where he lives and what he discusses, I don't think it's fair to disregard brits/aussies opinions because of a single person[/quote]
The issue is that a lot of foreign posters, at least when it comes to gun control, are just sarcastic assholes instead of mature adults who back up their debate with facts and reason.
[QUOTE=HAKKAR!!!;51294480]
I'm not entirely sure he should have done what he did but I don't think he's a bad guy for doing it, I can completely understand [b]why[/b] he did it even if I think it was the wrong move.[/quote]
If I went into a thread about DUI in Australia, would I be justified in making a shitpost "Hur Durr I'm an Aussie, G'day Cunts. I love me some Fosters, toss another shrimp on the barbie! hur dur"? It's relevant to the discussion since it talks about the issues of alcoholism in Australia, so clearly its a fitting post right?
[QUOTE=HAKKAR!!!;51294480]
He's not like that one facepuncher that was proud about shooting somebody with a shotgun in self defence and would brag about how many people he killed in self defence[/QUOTE]
I would bet my life that the guy you're talking about is a liar. Most people who take a life don't want to talk about it and certainly won't brag about it. If you meet someone who brags about it, they're either lying or have some serious disorders.
[QUOTE=Cyke Lon bee;51294537]
I would bet my life that the guy you're talking about is a liar. Most people who take a life don't want to talk about it and certainly won't brag about it. If you meet someone who brags about it, they're either lying or have some serious disorders.[/QUOTE]
He's most likely talking about Broseph, in which case I almost guarantee it's probably the latter.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.